Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

CLYDE RIVER PURIFICATION BOARD BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Clyde River Purification Board Bill shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than 4th August 1971 and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration, signed by the Agents for the Bill stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to

have been read the first and second time and committed.
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATION (ANCILLIARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than 4th August 1971 and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a Declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SHIPBUILDING ON THE UPPER CLYDE

Address for Return,
of the Report of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde."—[Mr. Ridley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

School Leavers (ScotLand)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of unemployed school leavers in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest employment prospects for school leavers in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): On 12th July, 6,739 school leavers were registered as unemployed in Scotland. About 40,000 young people left school for employment this summer and, although vacancies are fewer than in previous years, I am hopeful that the majority will find jobs within a reasonable period. Careers officers are doing everything possible to help them.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State use his influence, as a senior member of the Cabinet, with the Defence Secretary to reflect on the decision to contract the civillan training, which is of very high standard, at the naval dockyard of Rosyth and Caledonia to see whether it could be expanded, not contracted, in the present situation?

Mr. Carr: This is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence but I will take an interest in it. The hon. Gentleman probably knows not only that a number of hon. Members have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State but also that the rundown is not planned until 1979.

Mr. Dalyell: No. Instructors are being paid off.

Mr. Douglas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the figure of 6,000 is an under-estimate, because many of the young people have gone directly on holiday and have not registered? The true figure of unemployment among school leavers in Scotland is likely to be between 15 and 30 per cent. Will he take urgent steps to ensure that we do not lose these skills to Scotland, since when the next Labour Government are

in power we shall create the type of economy that employs them?

Mr. Carr: What is needed above all is an expanding economy, and for the first time for more than six years we have a Government who have taken measures to see that we get it. In the meantime, I agree that the figure of 6,739 may not represent the full figure, for the reasons mentioned. While the House should take this very seriously, we should not spread unnecessary gloom. I believe that, with the planned extra career officers and the other measures we are taking, the position will be better than some people fear.

Mr. Rankin: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he realise how important it is that he should not appear to be becoming the Secretary of State for Unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. Carr: I realise how important the matter is. That is why I welcome so strongly the first major expansionary steps taken by any Government for over six years.

Regional Prices

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he hopes to reach his decision on the report of his Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee on regional prices; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): My right hon. Friend will announce his decision shortly when he has considered the full implications of the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost of living in London is at least 15 per cent. higher than that in the rest of the country and that the quicker this report is published the better?

Mr. Bryan: I understand the hon. Members concern with this subject. We are not trying to hold the report back, but it has proved a highly complicated subject, so much so that the Advisory Committee had to submit the problem to a technical committee, and so there is much to think about. But a statement will be made shortly.

Mr. Scott: Will my hon. Friend avoid collecting and publishing statistics just for the sake of doing so? We have a special index for pensioners, and I am sure that that is right, but we do not want a plethora of indices to be published.

Mr. Bryan: It has been the policy of my Department since 18th June, last year, to see that no unnecessary statistics are provided.

Thorne

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to reduce the number of unemployed persons in the area of the Thorne Employment Exchange.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): The Government's various measures to stimulate output, in particular the tax reductions and the large infrastructure programme announced by my right hon. Friends, will have a generally beneficial effect on the employment situation, which Thorne can be expected to share.

Dr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that new employment opportunities at Thorne may be discouraged so long as there is the faintest likelihood that Thorne colliery will reopen and absorb manpower? Will he therefore press the Chairman of the National Coal Board for an early decision one way or another about the future of Thorne colliery?

Mr. Howell: We are aware of the situation in Thorne and I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a stimulus to consumer expenditure of the kind announced last week, however welcome it may be in some other parts of the country, will not do much, if anything, to relieve the structural unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Howell: There is a special problem with coal mining. It was not just a stimulus to consumer expenditure which was announced last week. My right hon. Friend also announced free depreciation for plant and machinery in service industries in development areas, an increased

rate of first-year allowances on all capital expenditure, and many other measures.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Doncaster travel-to-work area, of which Thorne is a part, now has nearly 6,000 unemployed, a level of almost 6 per cent.? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend at the Department of Trade and Industry told me the other day that only 1,954 jobs would be in prospect in the area over the next few years? Is it not clear that the Government should have a crash programme to relieve the problems of South Yorkshire generally where unemployment is higher than the average for the development areas?

Mr. Howell: The rate for the Don-caster travel-to-work area is 5·4 per cent., not quite 6 per cent., but still very high, as I concede.

Mr. Harold Walker: It is 650 up since that figure was taken.

Mr. Howell: The Government believe that the wide range of measures which have been taken will have a major effect on job opportunities.

Training Centres

Mr. Simeons: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many short courses at lower levels of skill have been started within Government Training Centres since January, 1971: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryan: Since this experimental scheme was announced in November, four courses have been started and another eight are planned by the end of the year.

Mr. Simeons: Would my hon. Friend say how successful these courses have been, with a view to their expansion?

Mr. Bryan: These courses are at semiskilled level and are a totally new departure for the G.T.C.s. Early experience so far has shown that they prepare people successfully for work, and another interesting development is that many of the trainees have qualified for skilled training in the same G.T.C.

Mr. Rose: In view of the obvious difficulties in fragmented industries and the abrupt and rather unexpected manner


in which the Minister wound up the Hair-dressing and Allied Trades Industrial Training Board, would the hon. Member undertake to provide courses in those areas which are not covered by an appropriate industrial training board? Does he not agree that the Government have an important rôle to play in filling the gap?

Mr. Bryan: This Question is about the G.T.C.s and what the hon. Gentleman has said hardly applies to them. However, we are encouraging opportunities for training by private employers with surplus training capacity, and what the hon. Gentleman said may apply in that direction.

School Leavers

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the Government's plans to deal with the problem of finding employment for the 500,000 school leavers who will be seeking jobs at the end of July.

Mr. R. Carr: I have authorised an additional 20 career officer posts in areas of higher employment and career officers in all parts of the country are doing all they can to help school leavers find jobs quickly. The measures the Government are taking to stimulate the economy will progressively improve employment prospects.

Mr. Johnson: May I say from this side of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not say; he may ask.

Mr. Johnson: May I put it to the Secretary of State that we are appalled by the Government's complacent attitude to this serious problem? Is he aware that there are tens of thousands of school leavers who will be without jobs for perhaps weeks and months, and that is not an exaggeration? Perhaps he would like to refute the statement by the Prime Minister in that respect. I am pleased to hear what the Secretary of State has said on this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked two supplementary questions already, and I think that the Minister must now answer.

Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not complacent

at all about what is a serious situation, nor are any of my colleagues. In my Department we are concentrating on improving our service for getting people into the jobs which are available with the maximum speed. I have appointed extra careers officers for the purpose. I have publicly appealed to all employers who were cutting down their intake of young people for training to change their minds. But, above all, I repeat, the Government, for the first time for more than seven years, have taken major measures for the expansion of the economy.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of unfilled vacancies for young people, or older people, in Wales has fallen dramatically and that if he appointed 100 career officers, that would not provide jobs?

Mr. Carr: I am well aware of that, but there is still much to do in getting people to the jobs which are available and doing so as quickly as possible and with as much skill and help as possible. The real need is to expand the economy. From 1964 to 1970 we had complete stagnation; we now have major expansion on the way.

Mr. Normanton: Would my right hon. Friend care to recommend to the hen. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and his hon. Friends that one of the best ways in which to promote good prospects for employment in industry for these people would be through their co-operation with the Government about our entering the Common Market?

Mr. Carr: As I have said publicly, I certainly think that the prospects of employment for all ages would be improved by our membership of the Common Market.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report of the careers officer in the County of Durham saying that of 6,000 school leavers, 3,000 will be unable to obtain immediate employment? What are the Government to do about that?

Mr. Carr: As I have made clear, I am aware of the present serious situation. What the Government are doing


about it is to expand the economy, and that has not been done for seven years.

Code of Industrial Relations Practice

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will amend the Code of Industrial Relations Practice to include the suggestion that employers should actively encourage workers to join trade unions.

Mr. R. Carr: I will give careful consideration to this and all other comments made on the consultative document.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Genteman aware that industrial strife is often attributed to trade unions, but is due to the attitude of arrogant and ignorant employers, and that a survey shows that more than 40 per cent. of British employers are hostile to the trade unions? What proposals has he for changing the attitude of management, because that could do more than any repressive legislation to create good industrial relations?

Mr. Carr: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's adjectives, but I agree, and I have made it clear, for example, in the Industrial Relations Bill and the consultative document, that the primary responsibility for good industrial relations rests on management. I have publicly, not only in the House but outside, expressed the belief that trade unionism ought to be encouraged. I think that that is right. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take account of what he said.

Mr. Adam Butler: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that paragraph 6(c) on the first page of the consultative document says—[HON MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading from the document; it says—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not quote a document during Question time.

Mr. Butler: I apologise. In this paragraph there is a statement to the effect that it is one of the responsibilities of management to encourage employees to join trade unions. Is not that the straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question?

Mr. Carr: That is certainly so. The Code of Practice has to take account of all forms of employment, including places where trade unions are not as yet recognised. The Bill will be a strong encouragement to trade union membership.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it needed a major debate on the Industrial Relations Bill in Committee to get words into the Bill to prevent it from actively discouraging workers from joining trade unions? [Interruption] Hon. Members opposite have not taken part in these debates and do not know. It was the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and others who had to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that as it then stood the Bill actively discouraged workers from joining a union. That is why the Government had to move an Amendment. Then we awaited the Code of Industrial Practice—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not like the facts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact —[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker knows that I am in order.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the right hon. Lady is in order. But I was wondering whether she was anticipating later discussions.

Mrs. Castle: I am answering— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: In that case the right hon. Lady is not in order if she is answering.

Mrs. Castle: I am dealing with the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and asking the Secretary of State whether it is not a fact that the Code of Industrial Practice in Section 6 carefully qualifies a management's duty to encourage trade unionism, limiting it to those cases where trade unions are already recognised? Is it not a fact that the gap in the code has already been commented on by the unions?

Mr. Carr: I do not accept the right hon. Lady's interpretation over what happened to the Bill in Committee. What I do recall is that when an Amendment— which I accepted—was moved, to introduce a primary responsibility upon management into the Bill, it was opposed by


the first speaker from the benches opposite. As to the right hon. Lady's second point, it is true, as I have said, that since this code must deal with all forms of employment, including employment where there is no union, I must limit the substance of the code as I have done. In the foreword I make it clear that the principle of the code is based on employees being members of a trade union.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many requests he has had from trade unions for copies of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.

Mr. R. Carr: Trade unions have so far asked for and received some 11,000 copies of the draft code through the headquarters and regional offices of my Department.

Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that figure. Does not he agree that it demonstrates that, no matter what the initial reaction of the T.U.C. may have been to the publication of the code, many trade unions have found it very valuable, and of interest to them?

Mr. Carr: I am certainly encouraged that we have had 11,000 requests for copies. I hope that the demand will continue. I repeat my hope that all trade unions will consult about this document.

Mr. Orme: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the reaction has been from any recipients of the 11,000 copies? What representations have been made by any trade union affiliated to the T.U.C?

Mr. Carr: As far as I know, no comments have yet been received.

Employment Opportunities (Departmental Placings)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will give, as a percentage of the total number of people who are placed in employment, those placed by his Department; and what estimate he has made of the percentage placed by agencies and through Press advertising, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The

best estimate we can make is about 20 per cent. A sample survey in 1967 suggested that, taking the employment field as a whole, about 35 per cent. were placed through advertising and 2 per cent. by private agencies.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not rather disturbing to hear that the Department is not having a great deal of success? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is obvious that unemployed people feel that there is much more chance of getting a job through advertisements in the Press and through agencies? Will he institute a commission of inquiry into this and bring some of the employment exchanges up to date, operating modern methods of placing people in work?

Mr. Smith: The figure is as big as ever it was and it compares pretty favourably with the United States where they have between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. official placings, and 25 per cent. in Sweden where there is a total monopoly. We are not complacent about this. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that we are reviewing the whole of the employment services, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce his plans in the autumn.

Robens Committee

Mr. Scott: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he can now estimate when the Robens Committee will report.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The Committee continues to make good progress but it is still too early to say when it will report.

Mr. Scott: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Committee's findings will be so comprehensive that they will cover employees not at present covered by the Factories Act? Secondly, can he say whether the Committee is consulting with our future partners in the E.E.C. so that this new legislation, when it appears, can be a code of practice for all Europe?

Mr. Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Committee is considering the problem of employees not covered by the Factories Act. It is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry and has recently visited the United States, West Germany and Canada. I will draw the attention of


the Committee to my hon. Friend's remarks to make sure that it covers all the points he has put.

Mr. Marks: Does that mean that the Committee's consideration will include teachers and other employees in schools?

Mr. Smith: Yes, it covers a wide range, pretty well everyone whose safety and health comes into account when they are at work. It is well beyond the shop floor.

Industrial Relations Bill (Implementation)

I. Mr. Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill on legally enforceable agreements will come into force.

Mr. Bryan: My right hon Friend will be making an announcement shortly about the timetable for implementing the various provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Holland: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to be more specific and to give an assurance that an announcement will be made before the House goes into recess? Can he say whether he will make an announcement on all aspects of the Bill and when each part will be implemented?

Mr. Bryan: I cannot give any such assurance. The Government propose to implement the Measure as soon as the institutions and other arrangements can be soundly established. Of necessity this means that implementation must be progressive.

Mr. Heffer: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what this is likely to mean? Is he aware that the Trades Union Congress is advising all affiliated unions not to agree to enforceable legal agreements? Is he aware that this can lead to a situation in which we are likely to have absolute chaos in industry as a result of this Bill because of the Government's stupid attitude in continuing with this concept of enforceable contracts?

Mr. Bryan: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt the Secretary of State will take all these matters into consideration when he makes his decision.

Employment Exchanges

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements in employment exchanges he has made since June, 1970.

Mr. R. Carr: Forty-eight exchanges have been rehoused in better premises and major improvements to another 59 offices completed. The Occupational Guidance Service has been strengthened and six more units established. The number of exchanges offering self-service facilities has been doubled and computerised job banks have been set up for the London area and nationally for certain occupations.

Mr. Osborn: To what extent has there been progress in separating the benefits side from the employment arrangements? Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent job banks are filling the vacancies in any of the service industries, where there is still under-employment?

Mr. Carr: To answer my hon. Friend's first question, this matter is still under consideration although I would add that we regard it as one of the most important questions to settle. We are in no doubt that the job banks are of great assistance in speeding up the matching of jobs with the available people. Although this does not of itself create more jobs, it is of importance, socially and economically. In operating the system, I am following what was started by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and I am very glad to be able to say so.

Mrs. Castle: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the real improvement in our employment services depends on a fundamental reorganisation, outlined in the consultative document on the future of the employment service which I issued as long ago as May, 1970? Is he aware that the House has been waiting impatiently for the outcome of the consultations? Fifteen months have elapsed and we still have no date for the appearance of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. Does he not think that this should have had a higher priority than the Industrial Relations Bill?

Mr. Carr: The two have not been competing. As I made clear to the House, while I accept the importance of the


review of the employment services, set in hand by the right hon. Lady, it is also important to look at the whole employment policy, including trainng—all in one—and to set our course for the future looking at it all in one.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the increase in persons registering for employment at Coatbridge Employment Exchange, he will make arrangements to provide additional accommodation, as existing facilities are inadequate.

Mr. David Howell: It is proposed to rehouse the exchange, together with other Government Departments, in a new office development in the town centre. Meanwhile, improvements are to be made to existing premises.

Mr. Dempsey: Is it not ironical that we should be providing money for new employment exchange buildings instead of providing money for jobs which will give work to the unemployed? Is the hon. Member aware that since the General Election unemployment has soared so high that we have now the second largest rate of unemployment on the mainland of Scotland? Would he not be more usefully occupied in persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get cracking on providing more jobs for the unemployed?

Mr. Howell: Both are necessary. The hon. Member will realise that employment services, retraining, and finding job opportunities for people are continuing needs, high unemployment or not. We are doing everything we can to reduce the high rate of unemployment, and the Government's new measures will help considerably.

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Member aware that the construction of employment exchanges is now virtually Scotland's only remaining growth industry, and that at some employment exchanges there are now 200 men looking for each vacancy? Will not he persuade his Department to get its finger out and do something about it? If the decision goes wrong at Upper Clyde today, is the hon. Member aware that men are saying that enough is enough, and that they will fight

in the yards? Will he make his right hon. Friend aware of the situation?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member takes an absurdly gloomy view of the future situation, when new expansionary measures are being introduced. As for the Upper Clyde situation, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement later today.

Training Grants (Older Workers)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many grants have been paid to employers for the training of newly recruited workers over 45 years of age, in intermediate and development areas since the introduction of the scheme.

Mr. Bryan: Up to June, 1971, 628 applications had been received, and grants to employers in respect of 208 workers have been paid to date.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate—I am sure that the House does—that this scheme is valuable in encouraging employers to take on older workers? As this will become an increasing problem in our society, will my hon. Friend take steps to expand the scheme—and certainly the publicity given to it?

Mr. Bryan: I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of the scheme. This is one of the several schemes brought in by my right hon. Friend to help train unemployed persons. It deals with the narrow category of men and women over 45 years of age who have been unemployed for two months. The objective is to persuade employers to give preference to this difficult category. I agree that we must step up our publicity. Already we have issued explanatory leaflets to all employers and had publicity through the Press and local radio stations. I agree that the scheme needs the maximum publicity.

Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on this side of the House strongly support the scheme and its expansion? Will he explain, however, what is the use of training people in an area like the North-West, where unemployment has soared to frightening levels and is even catching up with the levels in the most depressed regions and,


by the end of the year, is likely to overtake them? Is he aware that if we are to have training it must go hand-in-hand with a policy to expand job opportunities?

Mr. Bryan: I do not agree with the hon. Member's view that there is little point in training people at times of high unemployment. If a man is unemployed it is far better for him to receive training, because he gets far more satisfaction in increasing his skills, even if a job is not immediately available.

Portsmouth

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the trend in the employment situation during the past year for school leavers and young people in the Portsmouth area, with particular reference to the number of job vacancies as compared to the number of job applicants.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 12th July, 1971, there were 112 young people, including 22 school leavers, registered as unemployed, and 264 unfilled notified vacancies. In July, 1970, the comparative figures were 109, including seven school leavers unemployed and 482 unfilled vacancies.

Mr. Judd: No one suggests that the employment problems in the South-East Region are anything like as agonising as those in other parts of the country, but is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is severe concern among those responsible for the youth employment services in the South-East—especially in places like Portsmouth—about the types of job available and the types of young people needing jobs? Can he assure the House that he realises that this problem affects the whole country and is so serious that it demands radical action by himself and his colleagues in the Government?

Mr. Smith: It is serious, and action is being taken, as my right hon. Friend has reminded the House. But in the hon. Member's area we do not expect that the rate of absorption—although it is rather slow—will present too great a difficulty; in fact, most school leavers will have found employment by the end of the year. I am encouraged to learn that

apprentice recruiting in the naval dockyard is at a higher level now than it was last year.

Registration for Employment (Labouring Occupations)

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will extend the system of occupational analysis to show the industries in which wholly unemployed persons registered for employment in labouring occupations last worked.

Mr. David Howell: No, Sir. To do so would be too expensive in relation to the use such information would be for placing purposes.

Mr. Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the definition of "labouring occupation" is so wide that more than half of those registered as fully unemployed at the moment are covered by it? Does he further agree that it is necessary to have a more precise occupational analysis to determine what sort of training or what type of new industry is needed to reduce unemployment in the many areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Howell: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. We believe that a detailed analysis of this kind is useful in the construction industry, but in many other industries there is a fair amount of movement of workers between industries, and our reckoning is that it would not be of special value in finding job opportunities.

Apprenticeships

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress in an effort to increase the number of apprenticeships available for young people.

Mr. R. Carr: It is the industrial training boards on which employers and trade unions are jointly represented who are primarily responsible for the volume of apprenticeship training. I have asked all the boards to review the situation in their industries and to consider any special steps that might need to be taken. I have also asked the C.B.I. to do what it can


to persuade companies not to cut back the recruitment and training of school leavers.

Mr. Cox: In view of the seriousness of the matter, should not the right hon. Gentleman be doing something more than asking what is being done by the C.B.I.? Should he not be asking for urgent meetings at which this matter could be discussed? If he does not receive the amount of success that he would like in extending apprenticeships, does he not agree we should seek from the Government a greater willingness to spend money on and to extend training centres for apprenticeships throught the country?

Mr. Carr: On the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, he may have failed to notice that only last week I announced a major expansion of measures, including financial measures, to encourage Government training schemes. I can assure him and the House that I am not merely asking the I.T.B.s and the C.B.I. for advice; I am asking them to do things.

Captain Elliot: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the way to increase apprenticeship opportunities is to remain competitive, price-wise, in the export market? Has he had any reaction from the T.U.C. in answer to the initiative taken by the C.B.I. in the cause of price stabilisation?

Mr. Carr: I told the House in the economic debate last week that we are looking forward to continuing discussions with the National Economic Development Council next week—discussions begun last month—and I hope that they will be constructive.

Mr. Carter: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out an investigation into the employment situation in terms of school-leavers? In spite of his urgings, large companies are cutting back on apprentices and in some cases cutting out apprenticeship schemes altogether.

Mr. Carr: That is why I am not only making a general appeal to companies— and I have Birmingham in mind—but am asking industrial training boards to consider what should be done in each of their industries. I shall be keeping in close touch with them and supporting them in any action that they propose to take.

Derby

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for young people leaving school and registering as unemployed in the borough of Derby.

Mr. Dudley Smith: At 12th July the provisional number of school leavers registered at the Derby Careers Office was 61.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that the number of juveniles unemployed in the Derby area has increased significantly over the last year, and what possible message of hope has he for the young people in my constituency who are coming on to the labour market at a time when unemployment has increased by 65 per cent. in the last year and when the only sign of the Government's dynamic economic policy has been the arrival of the receiver on the doorstep?

Mr. Smith: The message of hope I have for the hon. Member's constituents is that the careers officers locally are not unduly worried about the position there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A preliminary assessment of the school leaver position suggests that some 2,000 school leavers will be on the market and that about 300 of them will not have jobs, but it is hoped that by the end of September there will be only 150 of them who will still be a problem. I do not think that that is too bad.

Mr. Urwin: Is the Minister aware that the concern of my two hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in asking Questions 15 and 19 is justified, and that the figures he has given starkly reveal the vivid comparison between different areas, and is he further aware that the situation which exists in the Northern Region, in my constituency and every other, now demands a great deal more urgent action?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I am aware, of course, that there are discrepancies between areas, and that is a point to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention in Answers to Questions today, and why we have taken action to expand training, and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment


have announced new measures which will expand the economy and improve the employment situation.

Apprenticeship Training Centres (Lanarkshire)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the grants given to apprenticeship training centres in Lanarkshire in 1969, 1970 and 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryan: Grants to such centres in Lanarkshire (excluding the City and County of Glasgow) amounted to £64,771 in 1969 and £276,091 in 1970. It is not possible to give a meaningful figure for this year as claims are not normally paid until late in the year.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a distinct possibility that, taking the present trend, the 1971 figure will show a decrease, and that in Lanarkshire, with the school leaving period of the summer time, 8,000 young people left school of whom 6,000 have not found jobs and 2,000 are taking further education? Is he further aware that because we do not have employment for craftsmen there is no need for apprentices and that consequently, unless something helpful is forthcoming, there will be a very serious position indeed for the people of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Bryan: The unemployment position is very serious, but it is certainly correct to continue to maintain apprentice training, and that is what we are trying to do. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the general remarks made by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox). With regard to special measures being taken, the engineering industry training board is proposing to increase its grant for the first year for off-job training for craftsmen from £500 to £600 this year. The construction industry training board is increasing its grant as well by 50 per cent.

Germany (Employment for Sheffield Workers)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services available at Sheffield

Employment Exchange to workers seeking employment in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. Applications received by the Exchange from such workers will be considered against vacancies in Germany under arrangements agreed between my Department and the Federal Institute of Labour which are now coming into operation.

Mr. Duffy: If the Sheffield workers in Germany are not to suffer indignities and discrimination as Gastarbeïter, exploited by unscrupulous Landlords and paying taxes while not aware that they are entitled to social benefits, does not the Minister think that he ought to make available at Sheffield Employment Exchange appropriate literature, and consider the appointment of a liaison officer in Germany?

Mr. Smith: I agree. That is why officials of my Department have recently had discussions on the spot in Germany. I can tell the hon. Member that leaflets will be issued giving full information of conditions of employment, and they will be issued at employment exchanges in Sheffield and elsewhere in the country. Also a standard form of contract will be issued for German employers of British workers.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is it not regrettable that 17,000 British skilled engineering workers have been compelled by conditions in the United Kingdom to seek employment in Germany? Is not this a further indictment of Government policies which have created this lamentably high level of unemployment which means they cannot find jobs in their home towns?

Mr. Smith: No. It is not an indictment of Government policy because this has not suddenly happened overnight but has been going on for some 15 years. When there is a temporary difficulty here about unemployment and an acute labour shortage in Germany, such movements of labour do nothing but provide mutual benefit.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is now a steadily increasing flow of skilled workers from: the Tyneside area, and is this not clear evidence of the dismal failure of the Government's regional policies?

Mr. Smith: No. I do not accept that. There are a number of skilled workers who are still going, and that fact is not confined to one region. I do not think this will denude this country of our skilled workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Golding: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take special steps to ascertain the views of the electors in constituencies unrepresented in the House of Commons at the time of the decision on entry to the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Macclesfield are anxious to elect an anti-Common Market Member of Parliament? Is the Prime Minister also aware that in the absence of a referendum or general election, every constituency in this country will be expecting to be represented in the House of Commons during October?

The Prime Minister: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's realistic appreciation that the seat will return a Conservative Member—and as for his views, he had better wait to hear what they are. As far as the other seats are concerned, two were held by the Labour Party, and the responsibility for moving the Writs does not lie with me.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does not the result of the public opinion poll published today, showing that 45 per cent. of the electorate sounded are in favour of entry, against 42 per cent. not in favour, show that the electorate are responding to responsible leadership?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the fact that not the Prime Minister, nor his Government, nor this Parliament, have any mandate whatever from the British people, who in every area are against entry into the Common Market, and as he himself said at the general election that the only commitment was to negotiate, how has the Prime Minister the face to state that a vote of this Parliament,

whether with writs or no writs, will reflect the full-hearted support of the British people, without which he himself said— [Interruption.]—he himself said—he him self said—

Mr. Speaker: That is the third or fourth time and is tedious repetition.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: —entry would be unthinkable? But, of course, that was before the election.

The Prime Minister: It is impossible to commit oneself to the outcome of negotiations before the negotiations have taken place. We said that if the negotiations provided acceptable terms we believed it right to enter the Community. We think that the terms are acceptable and, therefore, we proposed to Parliament that we should enter the Community.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to explain the implications of entry into the Common Market to the Scottish people during the summer Recess.

The Prime Minister: I intend to make a number of speeches on this subject during the Recess, which will cover the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole, including Scotland.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his credibility in relation to the people of Scotland is probably at the lowest ebb of any Prime Minister in living memory? How can he come to Scotland and don the mantle of "Mr. Europe" when he already wears the mantle of "Mr. Unemployment"?

The Prime Minister: The people of Scotland recognise from my discussions with them in the past that going into the Community offers great opportunities to them as to well as to England and Wales

Mr. Onslow: On the subject of credibility, will my right hon. Friend confirm that nowhere in the pre-election speeches of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) is to be found an indication that, should he have been lucky enough to win the election, and should his Government have succeeded in negotiating terms which he would have had the courage to call acceptable, the next consequence would have been another General Election?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST MIDLANDS (OFFICIAL VISIT)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister what invitations he has received to include specific areas in his itinerary for his official visit to the West Midlands on 30th September and 1st October.

The Prime Minister: I have received a number of such invitations. As I told the hon. Member on 1st of July, details of my visit will be announced when discussions with local authorities and others concerned have been completed.

Mr. Archer: Will the Prime Minister try to reserve some time for informal discussion with ordinary people in the Black Country who would like to talk to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]— about what happened in the summer of last year which led in 12 months to an increase of 60 per cent. in the dole queues and the transformation of an area of relative affluence to one of redundancies, closures, short time, and financial privation?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider meeting informal groups as well as local authorities and official organisations, and if the hon. Member would like to make suggestions to me, I will consider them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that on 30th September, the date mentioned in the Question, I am to be at a public meeting in Evesham Town Hall addressing the electors of South Worcestershire on the Common Market? Will not my right hon. Friend accept my hospitality and share a joint platform with me on this important topic?

The Prime Minister: I am in some doubt whether we would show the unanimity I usually like to maintain with my colleagues on the platform.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he might be well advised to share a Common Market platform with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) rather than go to any of the major centres

in the West Midlands where, in Coventry, with unemployment over 6 per cent., in Wolverhampton, with unemployment nearly 5 per cent., and in Birmingham, with unemployment of 4·2 per cent., he will find his election promises staring him in the face wherever he goes? Is he also aware that the only achievement of his regional policies so far is to make the West MidLands a problem region, which it has not been for 50 years?

The Prime Minister: The invitations I have received come from the major centres in the Midlands because the people there recognise full well the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration for the situation which now exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received asking him to make a Ministerial broadcast on Government policies.

The Prime Minister: I have received a number of such letters over the past year. On 8th July I made a Ministerial broadcast on Britain and the European Communities; and on 19th July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a Ministerial broadcast on the economy.

Mr. Ashley: While I understand that the Prime Minister's preoccupation with Europe has caused him to shuffle off questions on the economy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he make a broadcast about poverty and admit that the family income supplements scheme is now widely recognised as a disaster? Will he also try to find out why 92 per cent. of the people living in poverty will not touch the Government's proposals at any price?

The Prime Minister: More than 20,000 families will begin to benefit next week, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that that is a disaster.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANARKSHIRE

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he will next pay an official visit to Lanarkshire, Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I hope to visit central Scotland on 9th and 10th September. Detailed arrangements for my visit have not yet been settled.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and assure him that when he visits Lanarkshire the true picture will be painted for him of what the people of Scotland think of him and his Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lanarkshire 8·3 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed and that the sterling work of the last Government is now getting into a chaotic state because of redundancies? Will he tell the people of Lanarkshire that his regional policy is a disaster and that he will revert to investment grants instead of free depreciation?

The Prime Minister: My visit to Central Scotland will enable me to set out clearly all the additional measures the Government have taken to improve employment in Scotland and to give Scotland a sound basis for prosperity.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: When my right hon. Friend goes to Scotland in September will he take care to remind the people of what, admittedly, they know well, that the sole result of the regional policies of the last Government was the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right and is well known by those who study these matters in Scotland.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that during his tour of Scotland he will be discussing the merits of Britain joining the European Economic Community, and in order to have a fair and balanced debate, will he undertake to recognise and pay tribute to the warmth and sincerity with which between 1967 and 1970 the Labour Government pursued our application to join?

The Prime Minister: I always endeavour to give credit where credit is due.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the speech which he delivered at the meeting of the Central Council of the Conservative Party at Central Hall, Westminster, on 14th July.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th July.

Mr. Meacher: In that speech the Prime Minister said that his strategy included helping those who were worst hit by rising prices. In view of the publication today of the Government's report about the huge army of low-paid workers in full-time employment who are earning wages below the official poverty line, will he tell his eager Cabinet colleagues who are in the habit of bringing the Conservative election manifesto to Cabinet meetings and marking off in the margin the promises fulfilled, to write "failure" in large red letters against the promise to redress poverty? Will he also tell us what alternative pLans he has to satisfy his colleagues' itch for ticks?

The Prime Minister: I have read the hon. Gentleman's article in The Guardian in which he challenges the statistics of this report. Even so, I do not think that gives him any basis for the argument he is now trying to adduce.

Mr. Lipton: Without being unduly personal, may I ask the Prime Minister why it should take two days for a speech to travel from 10 Downing Street to the Library of the House of Commons? Cannot he speed up this process and show a bit more dynamic government?

The Prime Minister: The explanation is that this was a party speech and had to come all the way from Smith Square.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHEFFIELD

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment over problems arising from unemployment in Sheffield.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall yesterday's report by Lord Melchett in which he feared that the deficit of the British Steel Corporation may reach £100 million in 1971, and referred to plant closures and other forms of cost saving? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of accelerated plant closures, Sheffield is especially vulnerable and local workers are, therefore, extremely worried?


Will the Prime Minister say how far this is borne out by his correspondence?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a most important matter. It is one which, of course, rests with the British Steel Corporation for decision. I have not had a large number of letters about this, but that does not in any way lessen its importance. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that during the debates on the creation of the British Steel Corporation great emphasis was put on the need for the Corporation to rationalise the steel industry and to make it effective in competition with Europe, America and Japan. I do not think, therefore, that in these very difficult problems one can interfere with the Corporation's approach to rationalisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry on the salaries and working conditions of Government scientists.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, where co-ordination is necessary: but the salaries and conditions of service for Government scientific grades are handled centrally by the Civil Service Department.

Mr. Dalyell: Is a zero pay award fair?

The Prime Minister: The position was that the last Government decided—I do not in any way quarrel with this—that the scientific grades should be dealt with on the same basis of pay research as their non-scientific colleagues. The result was that certain grades were found to have salaries higher than comparable outside scientists. On the other hand, junior appointments were found to be below outside pay. The pay research conclusions were that the junior members should receive pay increases, but this was not justified for those grades which, so research showed, were receiving higher salaries than those outside. If one is to work on the basis of pay research and comparable remuneration, it does not seem justifiable—when the pay is already above those working outside—that those concerned should still have increases in salary.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Although I accept the force of my right hon. Friend's argument, may I ask him also to recollect that in the Fulton recommendations there was an intention to try to correlate the scientific Civil Service with other branches of the Civil Service? Does he realise that there is considerable fear among Government scientists that this proposal is being undermined? Although it is appreciated that it is difficult to intervene while arbitration is taking place, will he look at this matter again after the arbitration is over?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have looked carefully at this matter because it is of great importance. Far from undermining the position of the scientists and non-scientists in the Civil Service, what happened was that the previous Government decided that these salaries should be dealt with by pay research on the same fundamental basis as those of non-scientists in the Civil Service. What I understand has caused distress to the scientists is that when the pay research came out with its findings, the conclusion was that their salaries were to some extent above those paid in science outside the Civil Service. Therefore it was not possible to come to the conclusion that their salaries should be increased. Since, as my hon. Friend said, this matter is now before arbitration, we had better leave it there.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the Prime Minister undertake to make available the full pay research information to the people whose salaries are involved?

The Prime Minister: I shall have to look into that question to see whether it is customary to make the information public. All the information is made available to the negotiators on both sides; they have full access to it, and it is a complicated matter. Their conclusions are drawn from facts provided by the pay research. I will inquire to see whether it has ever been made public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As the House


already knows, the business for Monday, 2nd, Tuesday, 3rd, and Wednesday, 4th August, will be consideration of Lords Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill.
Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary to ask the House to consider also Lords Amendments to other Bills. Subject to this and to the progress of business, I shall propose that the House should rise on Thursday, 5th August and return on Monday, 18th October.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the arrangements for next Thursday? Since he has now announced that the House should adjourn next Thursday, which I believe will meet with bipartisan support, will he confirm the impression received from the Prime Minister a week ago that there will be a recall of the House if there is any substantial change in the position in Rhodesia? Secondly, recalling that about a year ago this week the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there would be no change in the position of arms to South Africa during the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman give a similar assurance that if there is any question of supplying arms to South Africa beyond what the House has debated and with which we do not agree the House will be recalled.

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I of course confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about Rhodesia.
In regard to the situation of arms to South Africa, if my recollection is right, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear that if anything was to be done in this regard an announcement would be made in the first place to Parliament.
As for the arrangements on Thursday of next week, I shall put down a Motion tomorrow for the approval of the House. If the House agrees, the House will meet at eleven o'clock next Thursday, take Questions until twelve o'clock, and adjourn at 5 p.m. I give notice—this is unusual, but I think it is fair in the circumstances—that I shall move that Motion tomorrow, but not the Motion for the Summer Adjournment, which I shall move on Thursday of next week.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although what is proposed for next Thursday and the date for the debate on the Adjournment is unusual—but certainly not unprecedented since we ourselves did this a year or two ago—I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should regard these arrangements as acceptable.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I regret that an exact announcement of the date of recess should have been so long delayed. I realise that it is of value to the House to make early announcements whenever possible.

Mr. Turton: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early Day Motion No. 650? If there are sufficient hon. Members willing to sacrifice part of the recess in order to undertake this important work, will he consider, after consultation through the usual channels, appointing this Select Committee next week?

[That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the evidence upon which were founded the conclusions in the White Paper, United Kingdom and the European Communities; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time, that the Committee have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and that it be an instruction to the Committee to report before the House is called upon to give its approval of the White Paper.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted that point. It is fair to point out that although some tasks are right to be undertaken by a Select Committee, others are more suitable for a descussion on the Floor of the House. Some ten days having been allowed for the debate on the Common Market on the Floor of the House I believe that it is the best place on which to argue these points of view.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement next week, now that there is a substantial division between the major parties on entry into the E.E.C., that he will revise his previous ill-advised statement on the misuse of public money for political propaganda?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have


already made the position clear and do not intend to make another statement.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the Leader of the House make absolutely certain that before the House rises for the Summer Recess there is a clear statement on the future rôle and development of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to keep the House informed of any development on Northern Ireland. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend will make a statement, but I know that he will wish to keep the House informed.

Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Secretary to see whether we may have a further statement before the House rises on the problems of refugees, relief and security in the Bengal area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering Questions on Monday of next week and this subject may then arise. I will call the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend please not shut the door too definitively to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on Motion No. 650? Does he appreciate that the functions of a debate on the Floor of the House are complementary to a fact-finding ascertainment by a Select Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I made the position clear, as I saw it, about discussion on the Floor of the House. I am on record as believing that the baLance between Select Committees and discussion on the Floor of the House should be carefully preserved. I personally believe that this is a subject which can best be debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill yesterday morning, on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, that the Government have committed £647,550 to propaganda on entry into the Common

Market on the terms presented, and that £191,000 of that money is devoted to the shortened version which has been distributed through the Post Office? In view of the widespread comment in the country about this matter, would he now seriously consider making the same sum —£191,000—available to the Opposition to produce a shortened version of the Opposition policy on this matter, to be followed by a longer version also to be distributed? If this is done at least those who take the contrary view may have their views brought to the notice of the electorate, with the same facilities which are given to both parties in a General Election for the distribution of election literature. Will he give a serious answer to this question?

Mr. Whitelaw: In one instance, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. He suggests that my hon. Friend made a speech in the course of the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on my behalf. That is incorrect. My hon. Friend spoke on behalf of the Department responsible for the Vote then being discussed. I noted the hon. Gentleman's strictures upon me for not being present. Had it been my duty to be there, I should have been. In this case, it was not.
As for the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made the position clear before, and I have nothing further to add to what I said on that occasion.

Dame Joan Vickers: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the findings of the inquiry into the Royal naval yacht race between Plymouth and Fowey will be known before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into that matter. I cannot give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks, but I shall make inquiries.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be no criticism of him for not attending the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. We all understand his sense of shame at having to defend an indefensible action of the Government in this respect. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on the occasion to which he has referred, consisting mainly of a quotation from a factory wall sheet, did


not in any sense deal with the precedents which have been broken by the Government on this occasion? Is he aware that it is an outrage for the Government to use public money for the propagation of a controversial document? Will he go into the matter again and make a statement to the House next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no sense of shame—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not. I do not regard it as an outrage. It was a perfectly proper action. I stand by what I said, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I listened to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) with something less than the normal feeling of satisfaction that my right hon. Friend's replies normally give? Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again, realising that an early decision in principle should be announced?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Dr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to allow time for the remaining stages of the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made my position clear about providing Government time for Private Members' Bills. I have said that I cannot do so. I am afraid that I cannot do so on this occasion.

Mr. Fell: My right hon. Friend will recall that I asked whether he could consider lengthening the four-day debate if hon. Members who had been trying to get in had not succeeded. It is well known that many hon. Members were still hoping to speak when that debate ended. As the six-day debate will be the end of the entire discussion of the subject, and as we understand that there will be a three-line Whip imposed on this side of the House, can my right hon. Friend so arrange matters that any hon. Member who genuinely desires to speak on the House on the subject and who has not spoken on it already will be called? I hasten to add that I am not an inter-

ested party, since I was fortunate enough to be called in the course of the four-day debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: To go quite as far as that would be difficult for any Leader of the House. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has said that the arrangements for the debate in October are generous. However, I shall discuss them further through the usual channels. I shall try to do the best that I can.

Mr. Bidwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Lords Amendments to the Immigration Bill are likely to be before the House? Will it be on the last day before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: It will not be before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Marten: Reverting to the suggestion of setting up a Select Committee to consider the White Paper on the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend, before he closes the door, read through the whole debate to see how many questions raised in it went unanswered? Would not it be a pity if in the fullness of time the impression were formed that the White Paper would not stand up to examination by a Select Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot pretend to have read all the debate, but I have read a large part of it. I cannot go any further than what I have said already about my view as to the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Leader of the House seen Early Day Motion No. 666, which he will appreciate represents the only way in which I can raise the subject with which it deals—[Interruption.] A matter like this cannot be raised by putting down a Question, because it makes allegations against the Chair. As it is the custom of the House to have an early debate when such a Motion is put on the Order Paper, and as the figures quoted in it come from an impartial source, will not the Leader of the House at least give an assurance that, if not next week, some action will be taken to see that what is complained of is not repeated when we come to the six-day debate in October? It is a statement of fact that of those hon. Members called 2 to 1 were in favour of the


Motion. That, surely, is not the usual custom adopted in this House?

[That this House, understanding the difficulties of the occupant of the Chair in selecting speakers to participate in debates in such a manner as to show complete impartiality, observes that for generations it has been the custom to select one for the motion under discussion followed by one against, on an alternating basis, but regrets that this practice was not followed with regard to the four-day debate on the Common Market White Paper, as a reference to the Official Report shows that 38 were selected in favour but only 20 against.]

Mr. Whitelaw: It might be said that the hon. Gentleman has now spoken to his Motion. I am sure that the point has been noted. In any event, I could not give time for his Motion to be debated next week.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of an Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 27th July about airport development in the London area, will my right hon. Friend find time at the earliest opportunity for a debate on a national airports policy in the widest context, since these decisions affect not only London but the regions? Unless we have a debate, or at the least a White Paper, hon. Members cannot give the matter the full treatment that it deserves.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised an important point. I cannot offer time for such a debate before the Summer Recess, but I note what my hon. Friends says.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent announcement about large-scale redundancies in International Computers Limited? In view of the fact that this is in the key area of research and development, and in view of the fact that the Government have put a great deal of money behind the firm, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement about the situation next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall be only too happy to call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said.

I shall investigate the position. I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made, but I shall call my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Lady's remarks.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question of Northern Ireland, is the Leader of the House aware that many of us would have appreciated a short debate, but in any event, would expect a statement from the Home Secretary? Secondly, while it will be the fervent hope of hon. Members in all parts of the House that there will be no deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland, should this unhappily occur during the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will have no hesitation about recalling hon. Members to deal with the situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. Again, I can only repeat that I shall call his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the provision for earlier meetings of the House during a recess under Standing Order No. 122 is always there. Consideration can always be given to it in the kind of situation to which he refers.

Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) which elicited the reply that the right hon. Gentleman will convey these views to the Home Secretary, will he also convey to his right hon. Friend the view of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House that, although we do not know what is going on behind the scenes, it would be a very serious matter if there were a re-creation in any form of a force which was disbanded two years ago? This might create a situation which I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want to see, and I know that he would not attempt to barter for votes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that there are full consultations before any statement of this sort is made.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he said. I have promised that everything that is


said on the subject will be brought to the attention of the Home Secretary, and it will be.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the subject of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
The Group which I invited to advise me about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders has reported. Their report is now available in the Vote Office.
Their principal finding are that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited, as organised in 1967, was doomed from the start as a result of the faulty concept of structure within which it was organised; the burden of eventual loss with which it was saddled; and the inadequate management with which it was provided. The group therefore conclude
that any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified".
The group also state that the present order book is dangerously thin for U.C.S. in its present size, particularly in view of the low level of orders coming into the industry.
Nevertheless, if the order book is concentrated at the Govan and Linthouse sites; if ship production is standardised; if the management is radically reformed; and if much more productive and realistic working agreements can be negotiated with the men who would be employed there—on these conditions, the group think it should be possible to form a new company which would retain a viable shipbuilding capability on the Upper Clyde with prospects of some eventual expansion.
The Government accept these conclusions. But the groups conditions are fundamental and the enterprise can go forward only if they are met. In particular, I must emphasise the need, if this venture is to succeed, for the first class management and for satisfactory undertakings by the unions in relation to working practices and wage rates.
If these conditions are met, the Government believe that private capital should

be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and the Government themselves would be ready to provide some of the initial capital.
If the new venture can be established on the basis I have described, some 2,500 men will have the prospect of continued employment there.

Mr. Buchan: Absolute shame.

Mr. Davies: Another thousand men, and probably more, should be able to find work with other shipbuilders on the Clyde. Some, too, may be retained in work by other interests acquiring U.C.S. facilities from the liquidator. For the rest, a considerable number are likely to be needed for the completion of ships already building.

Mr. James Hamilton: Bunkum.

Mr. Davies: Thus, only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant, although others will do so at intervals during the months to come as ships are completed. The Government will, of course, do everything possible to assist those who lose their jobs.
If the court grants the company's application for a winding up order, the liquidation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited will proceed.
While we are seeking to establish whether the conditions for a viable shipbuilding enterprise can be created on the lines recommended by the expert Group. I will have their continuing advice. I am grateful to them for the work they have already done.
To ensure meanwhile that the liquidator has the necessary working capital, the Government propose to allow him to retain for a limited period the moneys advanced under existing arrangements with the provisional liquidator. If during this period further sums are needed, then, provided there has been satisfactory progress in fulfilling the conditions I have outlined, funds will be made available from the Consolidated Fund and Estimates will be presented to the House in due course. If Government money were to be provided for a continuing operation, legislation would have to be introduced.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware—he is, of course—that he has


announced the end of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, the closure of Clydebank and Scotstoun, direct unemployment of 5,000 to 6,000, which, allowing for suppliers, could rise to 15,000, and could bring male unemployment on Clydebank to 18 per cent.? This is a major tragedy for the men involved and for Scotland, and it has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman without a single word of regret at any stage in his statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall want an urgent debate on this matter, that the Advisory Group report, now in the Vote Office, is a political document without a single figure attached to it, and that the House will want a Select Committee to examine the record of the Government in this respect?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, how many redundancies does he expect, where will they take place, when will they take place, and what effect will they have on the rate of male unemployment in Scotland?
Secondly, what is the cost of this policy to the Government in payments to the liquidator, the cost of reconstruction and capital to finance private persons to come in, in terms of redundancy and unemployment pay and the public assets of some millions of pounds which he has written off in the statement which he has just announced?

Mr. Davies: With characteristic exaggeration, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to cloak his own manifest responsibility for the situation. He criticises this Group, which is both expert and impartial —[HON. MEMBERS: "Tory."]—nonsense —as to the views which it expresses, largely to conceal the fact that its criticism is, quite properly, directed against himself.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions of merit. First, what redundancies do I anticipate? I have made it clear in my statement that redundancies immediately are unlikely to be more than 400. The ultimate redundancies will depend whether the project which this Group has outlined is sustainable and can be undertaken. They also depend on the ultimate disposal, with work continuing, of parts of the U.C.S. activity, particularly those to which he referred at Clydebank and Scotstoun. Therefore, any

endeavour to try to forecast at this moment the exact number or timing of redundancies would be irresponsible.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the total cost which may be envisaged for Government expenditure clearly depends on what access there is to private funds to sustain this further project. Until such time as that is clear, it is impossible to say what the position will be. For guidance, however, it is right to say that up to the present £4 million has been advanced to the provisional liquidator, of which approximately £1¼ million is in the form of effective grants. The remainder, approximately £2¾ million, advanced to keep the labour force at work until 6th August in the recognition that a large part of the work involved is to complete ships for which payment will be made, is in the form of a loan to the provisional liquidator, and it is that loan which he will retain for the time being.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my questions. There must have been some figures before the Cabinet when it reached a view as to how many redundancies would be involved and what the cost to public funds would be. Will he tell the House what figures the Cabinet had? Will he also tell the House why the Advisory Group's report has been published without a single figure in it anywhere? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that responsibility lies elsewhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."]—will he agree to a Select Committee of the House examining the records of both Governments in this respect?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since this policy was forecast almost exactly in the Ridley Report, we do not believe a word that the Government say on the matter?

Mr. Davies: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is pure evasion. The responsibility lies entirely with him. He resents the report because, quite rightly, it points the finger at him, and he should answer that responsibility.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report of the wise men makes it quite clear that the overwhelming responsibility for this tragedy rests on the shoulders of the right


hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? Is he further aware that just two years ago the right hon. Gentleman told a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that to give an open-ended commitment to one shipyard would totally undermine shipbuilding policy generally? In the light of those two facts, will he treat the right hon. Gentleman's comments with the contempt that they deserve?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I heartily endorse every word of my hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Small: This is the grimmest news that the Clyde has had in years. Connells in Scotstoun is in my constituency, and I know the concern of the workers there. This is a matter of judgment as to whether this group is viable or not. The loyalty to the group over the last 18 months by the workers there has been outstanding, and I repeat that this is a matter of judgment.
What guarantee has the liquidator for continuing wages to the men after the terminal date of 6th August, and for how long will these wages be continued during the phasing-out period?

Mr. Davies: I have made the point about funds being presently in the liquidator's hands, and I have described what they are. They will remain available to him to secure a continuation of employment in the terms in which my statement reads. The liquidator is in possession of such funds as will enable him so to continue. While he has specific responsibility to have regard to the interests of the creditors, it is essential that nothing he does, or that I do in support of him, should prejudice his legal responsibilities in that field.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: But is it not time that both the House and the country recognised that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite is wholly responsible for this tragic situation? Was it not very fully predicted in the D.S.I.R. Report on the industry, published in 1960, and does the Minister not agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the question which the hon. Member is putting.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the Minister not agree that there can be no effective response to the massive challenge presented

to Western Europe by the Japanese shipbuilding industry unless that response is now organised on a Western European scale? Is that not now our policy?

Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a problem for Western Europe at the moment. Despite all the polemics and hostilities which this matter may arouse, what seems to me to be critical is to try to get this residual element, which looks as though it might have a future, to work. It is essential to try to do so.

Mr. Rankin: If there has to be a residual effort, or any kind of resulting effort, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of creating confidence among the men who are working in the shipyards on Clydeside? Does he realise the importance of that?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further realise that his statement will destroy any little remnants that exist of that confidence? Does he realise that? Will he tell us one or two other things? How many shipbuilding yards on Clydeside are to be closed? He has not told us that yet.
Why is the action of Fairfields in the period from 1964 to 1967 exempt even from criticism, and why is it that the condemnation and the criticism starts only from 1967? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Fairfields were functioning in the situation which he condemns for three solid years? Does he approve of how Fairfields were run then? If he does, will he seek to keep Fairfields going, as it could do, with whatever shipyards will be remaining on Clydeside when he has finished with it?

Mr. Davies: On the question of confidence, with all the uncertainties which have overwhelmed this concern from its inception, it is difficult to speak of confidence about its future at any time.
The number of yards that will be closed will depend upon the result of the various efforts that are now made. The first effort will be to try to get this proposed project going. If that happens, the Fairfields yard at Govan will be the central unit of the project.

Mr. Rankin: Which yards?

Mr. Davies: The Fairfields yard at Govan, which is the central unit of that project with Linthouse. The two other


main yards of U.C.S., Clydebank and Scotstoun, will be disposed of, perhaps for continuing work, by the liquidator.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say something about the procedure for bringing together those who may be able to give the assurances which might preserve these yards on the Upper Clyde? Second, can he say whether any apprentices will be involved in the immediate redundancies? As some of these youngsters may have served for three or four years, will he consider taking urgent steps to bring together the Confederation of Local Employers to see whether these young people can complete their apprenticeships?

Mr. Davies: The purpose to which my hon. Friend refers in specifically that to which I am addressing myself.
I am conscious of the problem of apprentices, and so, indeed, is the liquidator. Discussions have taken place between him and others concerned with a view to trying to ensure the eventual completion of their apprenticeships.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the House—[Interruption.]—I am not going to stop these questions now, but I must warn the House that there can be only a limited period for them.

Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, implied in his statement, there is the possibility, or perhaps the probability, of the whole of the shipbuilding unit on the Upper Clyde being disposed of? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that unless certain conditions were obtained in the immediate future in the negotiations that are taking place the possibility of a viable shipbuilding unit would not exist. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman still has in mind the complete decimation of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what he has in mind for those workers whom he has said will be made redundant? Is he making any provision for the employment of at least some of the redundant workers behind the desks of the employment exchanges to cope with increased productivity in the only place where it is happening in Scotland?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government have in mind when he tells us that the Government are concerned to do everything possible to alleviate the circumstances of these men? Remembering what one of his right hon. Friends said recently, that there were signs of improvement in Scotland, and immediately afterward the unemployment rate shot up by thousands, with disastrous results, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is following the policy that was followed when that occurred? Does this mean that not only U.C.S. workers are in peril, but that other workers face the same danger, too? Can the right hon. Gentleman spell out exactly what the Government propose to do to protect the interests of shipbuilding workers?
When my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a Question.

Mr. McCartney: I am trying to pose the questions and the reasons for them at the same time. Whey my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said that this was the biggest disaster for years in Scotland, he was right. It is a great disaster, but would not the Minister agree that he is the biggest disaster of all time?

Mr. Davies: The answer to the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions is that the intention, if at all possible, is to get the project, which the group has recommended, to work. That will require a great deal of effort.
In answer to the second question, the help which can be given to those who are rendered redundant is that which is available through the Department of Employment and which is well known to the hon. Gentleman.
The third question relates essentially to the effect on suppliers and the work forces which are involved with suppliers. If it proves possible to work the project which has been recommended, it is the intention to transfer the bulk of the existing shipbuilding programme of U.C.S. to the new project. If this is so, the suppliers' outlets will be to a considerable degree preserved. This should give some reassurance on the subject of their employment.

Mr. Ross: Am I right in thinking that the present work force of U.C.S. numbers 8,300 and that the right hon. Gentleman under his reconstruction gives the possibility, and only the possibility, of continued employment for only 2,500? Therefore, this is not reconstruction; it is butchery.
Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the saddest days of my life was when I was in Maryhill Barracks with the H.L.I. and went through Clydebank the day after it had been bombed by the Germans? The blow that has been delivered to Clydebank by the Government is even worse than that. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of it.
Is he aware that there is no evidence that social considerations have been brought into this? This is a cold and callous manoeuvre such as was foreseen by the Ridley report. Will the right hon. Gentleman go up to Clydebank and then to Scotstoun and talk to the men and tell them why he is doing this? Exactly how are these men to find employment when the unemployment rate in this area is already nearly 10 per cent.? Will he tell us just exactly what hope there is of getting private capital into this project? What hope has he, on the basis of a statement such as the one he has just made, of getting a continuation of the co-operation that the unions have given to the management in recent years?

Mr. Davies: The hope I have is certainly not assisted by the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: Disgraceful !

Mr. Davies: The responsibility for this event lies squarely on the Front Bench opposite—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this to continue. This is a matter which ought to be debated—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Other hon. Members: Butchery !

Mr. Speaker: Order—and it might be that I could help.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the callous and unfeeling attitude of the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say.

Mr. Wilson: —which has been endemic in Government policy since the right hon. Gentleman's maiden Ministerial speech nine months ago, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not from him that we want to hear and that in the debate that must take place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— we have our own rights in this matter, but in that debate the House has a right to acquire the attendance of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's decision on the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and its implications for those concerned, for Scotland, and for shipbuilding as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's decision on the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and its implications for those concerned, for Scotland, and for shipbuilding as a whole.
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is one proper to be discussed, and I hope perhaps a little more quietly, under Standing Order No. 9.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having risen accordingly—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business on Monday afternoon when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours under Standing Order 9(2).

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns a matter related to that which we have just discussed and is a matter which is before the courts. I had an urgent communication this morning from a constituent who has substantial interests in the proposed liquidation of U.C.S. I have informed the Secretary of State of this matter. My constituent in his turn has been in communication with, he tells me, 75 of the creditors.
I have quickly perused this short report. I understood the Secretary of State to say that he was accepting the recommendation in paragraph 3.1(1) that an end be made to U.C.S. How is it possible for us to prevent further developments, if the debate is not to take place till Monday and when the significant item in the court proceedings which are taking place is that the creditors are not willing to press their claims subject to certain agreement with the liquidator?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear to me from what the hon. Gentleman has already said that this can be nothing to do with the Chair.

Dr. Mabon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a very relevant matter. It involves a great deal of money for many small traders, and Monday may be too late—

Mr. Speaker: That may well be so, but it has nothing to do with the Chair. I have given my decision about the debate and that must stand.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 7

APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRADE UNION IN LIEU OF MEMBERSHIP

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th July] proposed on consideration of Lords Amendments, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, No. 14A, in page 6, line 44, to leave out 'construction'.

Question again proposed.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Last night we were discussing this Amendment and Amendment No. 14B, in page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (7). The Under-Secretary of State for Employment moved the Amendment formally and we had no statement from him. I understand that he was trying to make progress in the debate, but it seemed to us that there should have been some explanation of these Amendments. I want to make it clear that we recognise that the Amendments are a concession to the Opposition in the other place and that they arise out of discussions which originally took place in this House in the Committee stage.
Reference to the construction industry has been eliminated from the Clause by this Amendment. It means that there can be a widening of the number of industries for which the Secretary of State can make statutory orders. But we believe that the hon. Gentleman should explain in some detail the thinking of the Government on what industries would be involved, in addition to the construction industry, because there are many industries where workers are employed on a casual basis and where the application of the provision of three months, or one month, after an agreement was arrived at would mean that many thousands of workers would not be involved in union membership because of


the casual nature of their job. I can think, for example, of musicians, seamen on short runs, members of Equity, television employees and so on. I believe that the Government are in duty bound to explain the situation a little more clearly. We are not making a big issue of this point. We on this side of the House consider these Amendments are concessions to points raised by the Opposition here and in the other place, but it in no way means that we are accepting the whole concept of the agency shop in principle. We are opposed to the agency shop. We think it is wrong and we believe that the Government have once again got themselves into this muddled situation because of the concept of the agency shop which they have put forward.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for what he has said. In a burst of somewhat misguided enthusiasm late last night I tried to assist progress by moving this Amendment formally. That is always a hazardous thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman has now asked me to give an explanation.
This is not a major matter, but it is of some importance. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment has been requested both in this House and in another place. Therefore, I owe it to the House to give a short explanation of what these two Amendments are about. In doing so I entirely accept, although I do not agree with the hon. Member, that by concurring with Amendments to some of these Clauses this does not commit the Opposition to any concept of the agency shop. This was well deployed yesterday in debate and we are only too well aware of the hostility towards the agency shop of hon. Members opposite.
We feel that these Amendments are an improvement because they enable the Secretary of State to make orders by Statutory Instrument to modify in respect of any industry, not only in the construction industry, the requirements of Clauses 7(5) by substituting shorter periods for those specified.
If I may explain briefly, Clause 7(5) provides that a worker shall not be required by an agency shop agreement to

pay an appropriate contribution in respect of certain periods. In the case of a worker already in the employment of a firm when an agency shop agreement comes into effect, this period is three months from the date when the agreement takes effect. In the case of a worker engaged for employment with a firm where an established agency shop is operating the period is one month from the commencement of his employment. In the construction industry, where many workers are employed for periods of short duration and workers are rarely employed by the same employers on more than two successive occasions, and where a small permanent labour force is often supplemented by a large number of transient workers, the requirement of one and three months would often make the operation of an agency shop impracticable. Subsection (6) therefore, enables the Secretary of State to make an order to substitute shorter periods in agency shop agreements covering workers in construction. Subsection (7) defines a construction worker.

Mr. Heffer: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate in any way the thinking of the Government as to the actual period when he says "a shorter period"? What does that mean? Does it mean two weeks, one week, or three weeks? What have the Government in mind?

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not think one could say at this stage, and it would certainly be wrong to commit my right hon. Friend because this would have to be judged on the cases. I think the position needs to be reserved. However, this is for a period shorter than those two periods which I have already mentioned.
Representations were made about this problem of those on short duration employment. The movement of workers between employers is by no means confined to the construction industry. That fact is well appreciated. As I say, we have had representations both in this House and in another place. Such conditions occur, apart from in the construction industry—for example, in entertainment as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in agriculture, in seafaring and other industries. While it would be wrong to delineate the whole lot, we will promise to consider any particular cases which are advanced.
It would seem reasonable to extend the power of the Secretary of State to enable him to make an order to modify these requirements for the period after which the appropriate contribution becomes payable for work of any description where it would be appropriate to do so. In those circumstances, I suggest that it would be sensible to agree with this Amendment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Looking at this matter logically, where there is an established industry, whether one agrees with the principle or not, how will this provision be operated? In industries with an itinerant labour force which changes all the time, of which there are many, how can one get a stable trade union situation? It is beyond me.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not think that arises on this Amendment. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman appears to be. I do not disguise the fact that there are difficulties because, as he says, work forces are moving around a great deal. But with this Amendment, which is a sensible one, there is more chance of establishing an agency shop situation than otherwise would be the case. It would be fairly impracticable, as it was realised at the outset, in the construction industry, and this would open it up to other industries, examples of which I have given, if an agency shop is desired by the workers concerned.
In those circumstances, I commend this Amendment to the House, and again I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so brief in his comments and allowing me to make this explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF DISPUTE RELATING TO CONTRIBUTION

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 7, line 28, leave out "person" and insert "worker".

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor drafting Amendment the need for which was pointed out in another place by several noble Lords, Lord Delacourt-Smith and Lord Hoy among them. It deletes "person" and substitutes "worker" in the agency shop process and thereby regularises the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 7, line 33, leave out from "Act" to end of line 37.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Again, the Government are responding to a request made by the Opposition in another place. Clause 9 as it stood contained three sub-paragraphs to subsection (1), and it was suggested to us that what was required could be achieved by the retention of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b); this Amendment will have the effect of removing sub-paragraph (c). The Government supported a similar proposal in another place. This will achieve, by the use of appropriate words, what was desired by the Opposition in the House of Lords.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: As an agency shop agreement can exist only within the highly complex legal framework established by this Measure, the words which it is proposed to delete seem unnecessary and, to that extent, I agree with the Solicitor-General —but only in isolation, for I must again enter the caveat that we are opposed to the whole concept of the agency shop.
In this case the Industrial Tribunal must decide whether a payment is in accordance with an agreement. Such agreements must have the sanction of law and one expects, in the normal course of events, that a reasonable sum—a sum that does not unfairly discriminate—is bound to be the outcome of the remaining subparagraphs (a) and (b).
Accordingly—this is extremely unusual in our debates on the Bill—I see nothing in the Amendment which offends. In one respect it is to be commended; in so far as it may help to avoid some vexatious claims by what have been termed in our deliberations on this subject, members of the awkward squad.
Despite this tiny Amendment, the tribunal may become overloaded. The whole function of the tribunal is being changed. It is being effectively sabotaged and, as a result, is losing the confidence of the trade union movement. This tribunal has proved reasonably speedy, fair and informal in the past in dealing with such matters as redundancy payments. The Bill will render it ineffectual. But in so far as the Amendment might minimise the degree of sabotage, we welcome it. If it helps to avoid the retention of useless words, it will have done a little good in an otherwise extremely harmful context.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 9, line 8, after "rights" insert "or rights corresponding to negotiating rights".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following three Lords Amendments:

No. 20, in page 9, line 14, at end insert:
(4) In this Part of this Act "rights corresponding to negotiating rights" means rights to partcipate, on behalf of one or more descriptions of workers who are not employees, in negotiations relating to those workers, with a view to the conclusion or modification of one or more collective agreements.

No. 24, in page 9, line 38, at end insert "or rights corresponding to negotiating rights".

No. 284, in page 120, line 17, insert new Clause M—(Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings.)

The Solicitor-General: These four Amendments are grouped in this way to enable the House to consider more conveniently the important principles embodied in Amendment No. 284, which affects a later Clause of the Bill.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious to deal with Amendment No. 284 because, as

hon. Gentlemen opposite will no doubt point out, it raises an important new set of principles. It may be convenient, therefore, if, provided my right hon. Friend returns to his place with sufficient speed, I were to invite the House to reconsider the grouping that you have suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and limit it to the extent of discussing now, quite shortly, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, and then, almost immediately, as the foundation for the substantive debate, Amendments Nos. 24 and 284.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will understand my purpose in suggesting this course, for if the grouping were split in any other way we would lose a peg on which to hang the important contribution which my right hon. Friend wishes to make in connection with Amendment No. 284.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I entirely accept the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are happy to agree to the course he proposes, as long as we do not lose the opportunity to discuss Amendment No. 284 at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that it is the general wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 now, to be followed in due course by a discussion of Amendments Nos. 24 and 284?

The Solicitor-General: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though we will, of course, have to postpone the projected debate on Amendments Nos. 24 and 284 until we have deal with Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
To the extent that Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are Amendments to Clause 10, both are designed to have the same effect, namely, to introduce in the part of the Bill dealing with the agency shop the concept of extending the right to establish an agency shop agreement to a union which is representing workers who are not employees. This introduces, in addition to the concept of rights, the concept of
'rights corresponding to negotiating rights'.

Amendment No. 20 defines those rights as
'rights to participate, on behalf of one or more descriptions of workers who are not employees, in negotiations relating to those workers, with a view to the conclusion or modification of one or more collective agreements'.


This means, in effect, that a union which is representing people employed on contract for services, such as in the acting profession, or people employed in other non-employed professions, will have the right, provided it has the negotiating rights, to set up an agency shop.

A trade union which negotiates on behalf of workers who are not employees will, therefore, be treated for the purposes of this part of the Bill as having negotiating rights and, thus, being able to enter into an agency shop agreement. This is an extension which was recommended in another place by three noble Lords, members of the Opposition.

Mr. Orme: Would this also apply to people who are on labour-only sub-contracting work and so forth, who might be working at a particular plant but are classed as self-employed?

The Solicitor-General: There are a great variety of formulations of the labour-only sub-contractor. He is an animal classed in many sub-species. Broadly speaking, people who are engaged as individuals on contract for services, as opposed to those engaged as individuals under contracts of employment, qualify as workers and are covered by these provisions. Quite a number of labour-only sub-contractors, as opposed to gang masters in the same situation, would be covered by these provisions. Those directly engaged on individual contracts would be covered by these provisions.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Would such workers be classed as part of the 51 per cent. eligible to vote because they were working in the factory at the time?

The Solicitor-General: It would depend on the scope of the agreement. If a union had negotiating rights in respect of these workers, and was seeking an agency shop in respect of them, it would be seeking an agency shop in respect of the people covered by the collective agreement. There might be a situation where there was a collective agreement with the union representing only the employees or where the union represented both the employees and the self-employed. If it were that wide, and the union was seeking an agency shop, they would be included in

the 51 per cent. It would depend on the representation of the union.

Mr. Orme: Let us take the situation where a firm has a large number of subcontracting engineering draughtsmen. I deplore the extension of this sort of thing, but it happens. Would they come under the agency shop? Would they be eligible to vote? I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite explained the point.

The Solicitor-General: It would depend. There is an infinity of variation in this kind of situation. It would depend on the precise pattern. If the union was representing, and was recognised as representing, the self-employed and the employed, and was claiming an agency shop in respect of all of them, it would presumably be claiming it to cover the lot—all those it represented— and they would all be entitled to vote. If the self-employed draughtsmen were, of their own choice, or for some other reason, outside the scope of union representation—if they were deliberately standing apart from the union but were covered by the same agreement—then again the agency shop might extend that far.
The point is that if—as I suspect is in the hon. Gentleman's mind—one is dealing with a situation where there is an underlying recognition conflict, where the union is recognised as representing the employed and the self-employed are standing outside, an agency shop cannot then simply be imposed or extended until the underlying recognition conflict has been resolved. An agency shop or closed shop or union shop could not be set up until it was clear how far the closed shop was to extend. If there is an argument about how far the union's right to represent the workers is to extend, that has to be resolved first. That does not affect the situation where everyone is clear, where the union represents employed and self-employed and merely wants an agency shop to cover all of them.

Mr. Harold Walker: I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify several points. Lords Amendment No. 20 begins:
In this Part of this Act …


As I read that, it means Part II of the Bill, so we are not merely talking about the scope of a particular union. It seems to me that we are talking about all those who may or may not be involved in a ballot in a particular establishment where a union is seeking to establish an agency. That means that we are talking about people who may not be members of that union or of any union. We are talking about people who will be involved in an agency shop situation irrespective of whether they are members of the union making the bid. That raises the question of whether the Amendment is extending the right to participate in a ballot to people who might otherwise have asked to be excluded. My hon. Friends have referred to one or two examples. Another is that of part-time workers, who tend not to be unionised. For example, a large number of young people still at school or college find part-time employment in the distributive trade on Saturday afternoons.
4.45 p.m.
One accepts that the intention is to extend the right to participate in agency shops to people who might otherwise be excluded—people like the Writers' Guild and so on. Perhaps that is the intention, but—and it may be inadvertent—the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing in, for example, the group which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is so concerned about, the professional engineers who do not necessarily have the same affinity with the principles of trade unionism in a professional organisational capacity as the A.S.T.M.S. does.

The Solicitor-General: The scope of an agency shop agreement depends upon how far the proposing union wishes it to extend. Clause 10(2) deals with the situation where one or more trade unions desire to enter into an agency shop agreement in respect of workers of one or more descriptions. The union can say, "We wish to represent all those who work in this factory". It can say, "We wish to represent all those who work as employees and who do not work as self-employed". It could make its own proposals. As I understand the situation, the union, seeking to extend its representation of the range of people who have to subscribe to it in order to exclude the free rider, would normally propose that

everyone who worked in that shop, where it settled the collective bargaining terms, should be parts of it. Imagine that if the union felt that, by not seeking to extend to a great chunk of the self-employed or part-timers who were not enthusiastic non-members, it would normally win the ballot, so to speak, it would not seek so far to extend it. It is up to the union to decide how large an area it is proposing in order to continue or establish an agency shop.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I accept the point. It is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that concerns me, but what he is not saying. After yesterday's debate, we must bear in mind that we are not talking only about particular establishments but about industries. Supposing, for example, that the A.S.T.M.S. went to the Engineering Employers' Federation and said, "We want to enter an agency shop agreement in respect of all people engaged in supervisory or technical capacities in the engineering industry". In considering whether this union could have an agency, would the U.K.A.P.E., which includes amongst its membership a great many people not employed on contracts of employment but on contracts to provide services personally, be entitled to say, "In the reckoning for this, under the provisions not merely of Clause 10 but of the whole of Part II of the Bill, we assert our rights"? That could lead to some difficulty.
I am in something of a tangled web here which is arising from the good intentions of the Government in accepting a legitimate and valid point of view put by their Lordships. I am puzzled as to why Lords Amendment No. 20 is needed. The agency shop, as I see it, deals throughout in terms of worker, not employee. The definition of "worker" is embodied in Clause 158 and caters not only for people engaged in contracts of employment but who are in other categories to provide services personally and so on. In other words, those for whom the Amendment is designed to cater are already provided for in the Bill. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will clarify this matter, as I am in some doubt. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General would have a go at clarifying that for me. I am not trying to be awkward; I am in some doubt.

The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House; I have been trying to avoid seeking leave by intervening in order to answer questions. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is why the matter was raised in another place. The provisions of Clause 10 extend to workers and therefore in themselves cover the kind of people we have been discussing.
But the Bill as drafted did not extend to a union which was representing workers who were not employees, because it gave the right to apply to the industrial court to a union which had negotiating rights, and those rights exist only in respect of employees.
Clause 42 says that negotiating rights are rights on behalf of all or some of the employees. That is the only point of this provision. As the hon. Gentleman has said, workers are already covered.

Mr. Harold Walker: Oh, what a tangled web we weave!

The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Gentleman's noble Friends pointed out in another place, however, in order to give the union the corresponding rights in respect of workers as well as employees, negotiating rights have to be extended in the way covered by the Amendment. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's last question.
The extent of a proposed agency shop agreement depends on the proposal. With the engineers, for example, if the situation now arises in which a union says that professional engineers ought to be required to belong to that union, it is making a bid in respect of them. It would be free under these provisions to make a bid for an agency shop agreement. Therefore, the larger the bid made by the union, the larger the number of people entitled to vote on whether it should be accepted.
An hon. Member earlier mentioned part-time workers. If a union decided whether it wished to extend a proposed agency shop agreement to part-time workers, they, too, would have the right to vote on whether that agreement should exist. The foundation in respect of employees or workers depends on how wide is the bid by the union for an agency shop agreement. These are the mechanics

to make sure that workers come within the classification of employees.

Mr. Ashton: The Solicitor-General is saying that the size of the umbrella is determined by the trade union, but the size of the umbrella could lead to dispute with the employer. What happens if the employer says that he should have some say in deciding its size?
In the engineering industry, for example, there has been an amalgamation into one general union of staff and of workers on the shop floor, and D.A.T.A. has joined what was the A.E.F. It could be argued on the eligible-to-vote principle that management and staff employees, many not now in the union, should be eligible to vote simply because they were eligible to join the union. If the amalgamated union said that it wanted the umbrella to cover only shop floor workers, knowing full well that it would then have the vast majority, could not the management say that white collar workers were eligible to join the union and that the umbrella should cover them too? Is the Solicitor-General saying that responsibility for deciding the size of the umbrella rests solely with the union?

The Solicitor-General: May I interrupt? The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the scope of the proposed agency shop covers an underlying recognition dispute, the union might have to include white collar as well as non-white collar workers. The recognition dispute would have to be resolved separately and first. The next Amendments deal with this issue and it may be convenient to discuss the matter then.

Mr. Ashton: I accept that and I reserve my comments until then.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

BALLOT AS TO AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 9, line 18, after "application" insert "(a)".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following Lords Amendments:

No. 22, in page 9, line 22, after ("ineffective") insert:
("or
(b) such a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made in pursuance of the application, and would in that event be likely, until settled, to make that agreement ineffective").

No. 23, in page 9, line 23, after ("Court") insert:
("and to the trade union, trade unions, joint negotiating panel or employer who made the application").

The Solicitor-General: As a result of the severance which I announced in the last debate, these Amendments now arise before we reach No. 24 and No. 284, and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) may reach that point when we come to it. I doubt whether the hon. Member ever actually relaxes, but he can relax comparatively for a moment or two.

These three Amendments are linked. They are Amendments to Clause 11 and involve requiring the C.I.R. to postpone the holding of a ballot on an agency shop agreement in rather more extended circumstances than the Clause did originally. As Clause 11(1) stood, when a ballot for an agency shop agreement had been requested and it appeared to the C.I.R. that there was in dispute an underlying question about a matter of recognition, the C.I.R. was required to report to that effect to the court and not to proceed with the ballot until the recognition dispute had been disposed of.

The Amendments require the C.I.R. to behave in exactly the same way if it appears to it that, although a recognition question has not yet actually broken out into dispute, it is likely to do so if an agency shop agreement is made as wide as is proposed. This to some extent meets the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). It would be pointless to make use of the machinery for deciding whether workers to be covered by the agreement wished to have an agency shop until one was clear about the proper scope of the agreement. The Amendments enable the C.I.R. to anticipate such a point arising and to ask, "What is the point of having this agency shop ballot until we are clear whether

the workers concerned will wear the proposal that they should be represented by this union?" They extend the situation in which the C.I.R. may postpone the ballot in that way.

Amendment No. 23 is designed to meet a slightly different matter. If the C.I.R. reaches that kind of conclusion and is proposing to report to the court that a ballot is likely to be ineffective on that point, it should report at the same time to the trade union, or trade unions' joint panel, or the employer, making the application so that everyone knows that for the moment the matter is being postponed.

I hope that that explains the underlying issue about which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was concerned and the effect of the three Amendments.

Mr. John Fraser: From what the Solicitor-General was saying it seems that the Commission for Industrial Relations will be able to substitute its own judgment for the judgment of trade unions about whether it is worth going ahead with an agency shop agreement. The Amendments, taken in conjunction with the other provisions necessary to obtain an agency shop agreement, remind one of the lines of Christopher Marlowe:
My men like satyrs grazing on the lawns, Shall with their goat-feet dance an antic hay.
This is another antic hay which must be danced by the trade union before it can get what is now enjoyed by many trade unions and endorsed by many employers and working well.
5.0 p.m.
This is another twist to the quadrille to be deuced by trade unions so that they may get something which is a little like the present 100 per cent. membership. We have heard from time to time about "Alice in Wonderland." This method is yet another delaying tactic to prevent a union from getting an agency shop. If the Solicitor-General had to translate the lines from Lewis Carroll:
Will you walk a little faster" said a whiting to a snail,
There's a porpoise just close behind us, and he's treading on my tail".
he would translate it as:
If a question arises as to whether the porpoise is about to tread on the whiting, it will have a sharp request to withdraw from the dance until that dispute is settled.


That is the ridicule which is being brought upon this operation.

The Solicitor-General: Would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that this is the purpose of the exercise? Suppose a large union makes a claim for an agency shop and there is a small union whose claim to represent the workers in the shop has not yet been disposed of. If the C.I.R. saw that by going ahead with the agency shop ballot it would be excluding the small union—[Interruption.]—where a recognition dispute was likely to arise—

Mr. Orme: The Government are creating the dispute.

The Solicitor-General: No, the dispute is there, underlying it. If the C.I.R. was satisfied that if it turned to the small union and said, like the Red Queen, "Off with his head !" the dispute would go underground and burst out again, then it would be entitled to defer the ballot. It is not creating a difficult situation, it is enabling the C.I.R. to avoid a difficulty which would otherwise be inevitable.

Mr. Fraser: It seems that it is creating a situation whereby a premium is placed upon a trade union dispute. It might not be a trade union which is creating the likelihood of a dispute, it might be an employer who has decided that under certain circumstances if he encourages a group of people in the works to make a separate recognition application it would delay the application to the Court for an agency shop.
I must take issue with my hon. Friends who say that this Bill is a lawyers' paradise. Practising lawyers do not like difficult law and difficult procedures. They would prefer simplified procedures because their experience is that when there are complicated procedures, such as those involved in discharging restrictive covenants, people do not use them. When there is a dispute about a restrictive covenant in property law the procedure is usually so complicated that people choose to take out an insurance policy, ignoring the lawyers altogether.
This is not Amendment 22, it is "Catch 22". Anyone who knows about "Catch 22" knows that it is about Yosarian who wants to get out of the American Air Force and the only ground

upon which he can get out is that of madness. "Catch 22" is that if he applies to get out he must be sane. This is how the Bill operates.
I can see the agency shop scene. It starts with the Minister telling a trade union, "I want strong and responsible trade unions" and the trade union saying, "We are a strong and responsible trade union, we have 100 per cent. closed shop and we want to continue operating that way, so we have no quarrel." "Ah !", says the Minister, 'There's a catch. You are not a trade union because trade unions are what I choose to call trade unions. You have to be registered under the Act, you have got to go through the hoop." The unions says, "Reluctantly we have become a trade union and now we will use the strength which we have, which is equal to the employers' strength and we will have a strike to get 100 per cent. closed shop." "Ah !" says the Minister, "there's a catch. You cannot do that because that would be an unfair industrial practice, because it might restrict someone's right under Section 5." The union says, "Fair enough, our members are so incensed by this situation that they will withdraw their labour, in breach of their contracts of employment." "Ah, Catch 22", says the Minister. I have amended the definition of a strike and even if you give up your work it still amounts to a strike." So the union says, "We'll do what you say, we'll apply to the Court for an agency shop." "Ah!" says the Minister, "you cannot do that, there is a catch. First you have got to be a recognised trade union and if the employer refuses to recognise you you have to go through the first procedure for recognition before you can make an application to have an agency shop." The union says, "We have done that already and we will now make an application to get something approximating to what we had in the first place as a responsible trade union—our 100 per cent. shop." "Ah," says the Minister, "Catch 22. There is likely to be a dispute as to whether someone will raise a recognition issue." That is the situation. We are in the realm of fantasy.

Mr. Harold Walker: May I offer a quotation which I threw across the Committee a few minutes ago:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

Mr. Fraser: I agree. This has become legal fantasy, a legal quadrille. Let us get back to first principles.
An Industrial Relations Bill is based upon improving industrial relations. Let us compare the procedure in the Bill with the basic recommendations in Donovan which was that we ought to have a speedy settlement of disputes. Does anyone imagine that the procedure set out here, terminating with Amendment No. 22 will lead to a speedy settlement of disputes? Donovan recommended that we should reduce the multiplicity of unions and it is clear that we will have better industrial relations when there are fewer unions dealing with employers. Once again a premium is being placed upon creating a situation where there is likely to be a recognition dispute. I can imagine the situation which might arise with a small group of workers over an agency dispute. They might get some advice from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She may say to her few "professional engineers", "Look, you can wreck this thing, you can raise the likelihood—you do not have to make an application—of there being a dispute and tell the C.I.R. and the matter will be put off." If hon. Members opposite believe the Minister when he says that this will improve industrial relations they are severely mistaken. This is a case of the bland leading the blind. We on this side are not blind to the problems that will be created. Let us contrast one case already dealt with by the Commission for Industcial Relations—the recognition dispute at B.S.R. Kilbride—which was solved by the intervention of the C.I.R. I do not think it was an agency shop problem. The C.I.R. intervened after a long and bitter struggle and, without the necessity of court intervention, was able to solve the dispute. Compare that as it operates at the moment on a voluntary basis, with the procedure outlined here and it will be seen that this is sheer Lewis Carroll madness.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if private parties are willing there is nothing to stop that happening again. This is when the parties will not use the simple procedure.

Mr. Fraser: This is where the Minister is mistaken. At the moment, parties

can voluntarily agree on recognition procedures. Let us look at the Kilbride case. There the union had to strike to achieve recognition. Under these provisions they cannot strike to achieve recognition or to set up an agency shop. The Minister is encouraging employers to resist the approaches of the trade unions to get an agency shop. At the moment if there is no voluntary agreement, it comes to a trial of strength, and the union can come out on strike. But under the Bill they cannot. Under those circumstances the Minister is putting pressure upon the employer to resist the demands of the trade union for the agency shop—to make it possible for him to do so through this intricate legal procedure— and is thereby delaying agreement being reached—going back to the Kilbride case —which is the right way to do it.

Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Member is not intentionally misleading the House. We are providing an alternative means of pressure for the union in a case such as that which he has mentioned. In that case, because of the lack of any machinery such as this, a union felt it necessary to call a strike as the only means of applying pressure. The object of the Bill and the other forms of machinery that have been set up is to provide an alternative to industrial warfare for solving disputes that cannot be solved in other ways.

Mr. Fraser: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer me by way of intervention. Is he now saying that a trade union can come out on strike to achieve an agency shop?

Mr. Carr: No. I am sure that I have made it clear that if they cannot persuade the employer, instead of having to come out on strike, or feel that they have to come out on strike because there is no other effective machinery, the Bill provides machinery other than industrial warfare by which they can exert pressure.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question directly. I agree that he is creating some kind of machinery, but he is saying to the trade unions, "In future, you cannot come out on strike to achieve an agency shop". That is the correct interpretation, is it not?

Mr. Carr: Of course—and is not it a good thing for the whole of the community, as well as for employees and for the prosperity of the firm concerned, that we should first have to try peaceful means —provided those peaceful means are available—before striking and doing all the damage that is caused by a strike.

Mr. Fraser: I agree that we ought to achieve machinery that leads to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Most people would endorse that. Our quarrel is not with that objective. Of course it is better to have a peaceful means of settling disputes. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Commission for Industrial Relations. What we object to is the long, elaborate, intricate procedure that has to take place before the Industrial Court, as an alternative to being able to come out on strike.

The Solicitor-General: Does not the hon. Member understand the three-fold pattern? On the one hand, the parties can go, quite voluntarily—as they can now—to the Commission for Industrial Relations. Secondly, they can go through this machinery to get the dispute resolved as an alternative to strike action. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that that involves delay, but delay is a small price to pay for the peaceful resolution of a dispute without unnecessary resort to industrial action.

Mr. Fraser: I conclude by repeating two things. The Government are saying, "We are removing the right to put pressure on employers. The only sanction that a trade union has is to take the employer to court". The burden of my argument is that that sanction is not a very credible one when it can be frustrated by Catch 22; when it can be frustrated by the method of the ballot, which we shall come to later; when it can be frustrated by a whole series of things—frustrated even by a union's not being registered as a trade union.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the operation of the York Agreement over the years heavily underlines his point?

Mr. Fraser: I agree entirely that the possibility of settling disputes speedily is lost. We are creating delay. All my experience leads me to believe that by creating this complicated and delaying

procedure we are likely to throw up a whole series of disputes, leading to people having a contempt for the law. That is why we reject the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: The Amendment at least shows that the Government are becoming aware of the complexity of the field of industrial relations with which they are dealing— the question of relations between trade unions. To that extent, perhaps, the Amendment is to be welcomed, although the provisions that the Government are seeking to insert show a continued ignorance of the methods that the trade union movement has evolved to deal with these situations.
I speak as a member of the National Union of Blast Furnacemen—a minority union among the production workers in the steel industry. We have heard little about that industry in our debates; perhaps I should take some responsibility for that. The way in which the steel industry has evolved has meant that in various parts of the country potential conflicts exist between my union—the blast furnacemen—and the largest union of production workers, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
The pattern that has grown up is quite illogical. In one part of the country my union will organise a group of workers, such as the locomotive drivers who take the iron from the blast furnaces to the steel melting shops; in another part of the country the other union may do so. To that extent the Government may feel that the provisions they are seeking to insert will give some protection to a minority union like mine, against the eventuality of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation seeking to obtain an agency shop that would exclude the rights for all or some of the categories of worker that my union has previously represented.
I appreciate the difficulty. I accept that possibility. My point is that the very development of the movement has created that problem. But, similarly, the movement has developed its way of dealing with such problems. Our customary procedures, along the lines of the Bridlington Agreement—using the mechanisms provided by the T.U.C.—have been invaluable in the past, and have been


very speedy and effective for resolving the conflicts which have arisen from time to time between our respective unions, to their mutual satisfaction.
I am disturbed and unhappy about the kind of legalistic procedure that is now being instituted. I do not think that it will contribute to the peaceful solution of such difficulties as I have mentioned. They have almost invariably been solved peacefully in the past, but they will now be subjected to delay.

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge that that is a real point, but does not the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the Bill leaves it free to the parties to continue as they have done, in the steel industry, for example, to resolve this kind of dispute through the T.U.C. by voluntary means in whatever way they like? In some situations, such as that of the white-collar recognition dispute two or three years back, the dispute has not proved capable of resolution by the T.U.C., and this machinery is now available as the next stage—as an alternative—if voluntary means fail. There is nothing in the world to prevent unions continuing to use voluntary means to resolve disputes, exactly as they have done up till now.

Mr. Tinn: I welcome the Solicitor-General's intervention. I should like to feel that his assurance will work out in practice. If it does, he will have met my point to a considerable degree. But I do not share his confidence that it will work out in that way. I am registering my concern that far from contributing to industrial peace, in an industry like mine, which has been remarkably free from dispute, it may well do the reverse.

Mr. Orme: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who, in a most witty speech, demolished the Solicitor-General's case. Where, on the second day of our consideration of the Lords Amendments, he found his literary form, I just do not know, but he certainly has a capacity for it and he put the case very clearly indeed. The "Catch-22" analysis was absolutely perfect in the circumstances.
The Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State keep saying that the normal

negotiations will not be affected, but the point is that there are all sorts of difficulties in industry, and we gave some examples of them yesterday. For instance, the Toolmakers' Society within the engineering industry is not recognised by the T.U.C., and there is the Newcastle situation, and the problem of employees in insurance—and in banking, where there is conflict between a union recognised by the T.U.C and a company union. Such a union would be able to wreak havoc by preventing the setting up of an agency shop or normal negotiations or by delaying matters almost indefinitely.
The Solicitor-General has not answered the point made from this side that his proposal will have a detrimental effect on industrial relations as we know them because it will openly encourage the very sort of thing we are talking about—delays and disputes between organisations. The T.U.C. has spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get rid of inter-union disputes. While it is agreed they have occurred, and will occur from time to time, they have been greatly reduced by the T.U.C and by its disputes committee in encouraging amalgamations. This proposal will not help that. There will be the problem of a major union in the T.U.C., and unregistered, and some small organisation which will be registered and which will claim to be representative of people at a plant and do so, perhaps, with the encouragement of the employers. This is one of the realities of life and it will be encouraged by the Government's proposal. Does the hon. Member want to interrupt me?

Mr. Adam Butler: I apologise for intervening from a sedentary position. I was trying to point out to the hon. Member that the obvious solution to his dilemma is for the unions concerned to remain registered.

Mr. Orme: Yes, but there could be a situation in which there would be two registered unions, one recognised by the T.U.C. and one outside its confines. I am thinking of organisations which can spring up overnight, and to which encouragement is given, and where sectional interests are pursued. The technical section of my own union, the A.E.U., is having this trouble at the moment with labour-only sub-contractors and craftsmen who, perhaps for selfish reasons, like


tax avoidance, are on short time. They are young and are not worried about sickness and security. Of course, when anything does go wrong they realise the problems and they come running back to the shelter of the castle walls. However, these are difficulties with which the trade union movement is dealing day in and day out. It only needs one or two employers to encourage such situations and we are in a real difficulty.
The Solicitor-General has yet to explain to the House how these disputes will be resolved within the terms of his own Bill. There will be delay in recognition of an agency shop in the hope that somebody will resolve the difficulty legally. If there is a conflict between a recognised trade union within the T.U.C. and a union which is a company union or outside the confines of the T.U.C., the only way it will be resolved will be by the employer playing one off against the other. The employer will take sides with the one and play it off against the other.
I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against both these Lords Amendments.

Mr. Ashton: What we really need in order to understand the Bill are some instances of disputes which have occurred in the past and of how this Bill, had it been in existence, could have been used to resolve them. That is the one thing the Government have not done—shown how the Bill could have resolved disputes. We have been given not one single instance by any Government spokesman or by any Member on the Government side.
I, too, would like to refer to the Tyne-side dispute and Parsons. We have never heard the point answered by the Government. It is a situation known as "U.K.A.P.E."—the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, a non-strike, small, élitiste union of professional engineers, the top people, the cream responsible for running things. We in the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association have always said that members of the U.K.A.P.E. are eligible to join our union and that we would welcome them, but our members, being democratic and following democratic decisions, sometimes want to take part in industrial disputes, and very often the professional engineers do not want to do so, and very often U.K.A.P.E. is encouraged by the employers.
Under the Bill D.A.TA. may apply for an agency shop. D.A.T.A. represents some 95 per cent. to 96 per cent. of the people in the industry and it will get an agency shop; the people in U.K.A.P.E., the professional engineers, knowing D.A.T.A. will get an agency shop, will be in a very difficult position and not be able to demand any rights of recognition at all for the 1 per cent. of non-strike people. So we shall have a situation under the Bill that U.K.A.P.E. members can come along to the management and say, "If you do not recognise U.K.A.P.E. we shall look for other jobs." Those are key people in very high positions and they can exert a great deal of pressure on management simply by saying, "If this is to be a closed shop, if we are to abide by the rules of D.A.T.A. and we have to subscribe to it or pay charitable contributions, we will look for other jobs."
The employer would then be justified in going to the Industrial Court and saying, "I shall be denuded of my chief engineers and professional experts. I shall not accept a ballot." One or another of the U.K.A.P.E. men may be in a key position, a critical job, in a factory. The employer would then be able to say, under the terms of Clause 11 and the Lords Amendment, that the agreement made with D.A.T.A. would be "ineffective" because he would be losing the cream of his executive staff who would be going to look for other jobs, unless U.K.A.P.E. were allowed to run things. Those people are very much in the minority in terms of numbers, but they can exert a great deal of pressure out of all proportion to their members, and they could render a ballot ineffective, despite the fact that the members of D.A.T.A. were overwhelmingly in favour of an agreement. That would be a case of U.K.A.P.E., the professional, non-striking union, putting in the thin edge of the wedge.
Two years ago there was a major strike at Parsons because of this. The strike cost my union a lot of money, it lost the firm many orders and caused much distress. If this part of the Bill would stop these strikes, there might be some value in it, but it will not, it will tend to make matters worse. Because there was a strike at Parsons, every other firm in the engineering industry made an analysis of the situation and then


declared that they were not too keen on U.K.A.P.E. They stopped pushing the idea of an elitist union because they realised it was better for the elitist engineers to be in the existing engineering union.
5.30 p.m.
My white collar union has now joined with the union of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which is a blue collar union, because it is to the advantage of everyone that all workers in the engineering industry should be in the same union. This not only gives them more strength but solves problems of recruiting, helps to stop disputes and encourages mutual help.
The Clause does not cater for minority interests. It encourages minority interests to cause the maximum amount of disturbance, and leaves the door wide open to the fragmentation of unions. In Pilkingtons the men tried to form a breakaway union, and this caused a great deal of disruption in the General and Municipal Workers' Union, but in view of the shortage of time I will not go into this. Will the Minister come forward with case studies of recent strikes and point out how they could have been avoided by the provision of this Bill?

Mr. James Lamond: I should like to supplement the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is a colleague of mine in the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association. If a union is told that to proceed with a ballot would mean a dispute between two unions in a firm, does the Minister believe that an organisation such as U.K.A.P.E. would have any interest in getting together with D.A.T.A. through the auspices of the T.U.C. and settling the dispute so that a ballot can be held?
I was pleased to hear the Minister give recognition to the work the T.U.C. has done in settling disputes before they reached strike level. But neither the T.U.C. nor any other agency could resolve a dispute between two bodies one of which was resolutely against coming to an agreement with the other. Unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have not found all employers to be responsible. Many employers would welcome this

opportunity to encourage small unions so that a dispute could be reported and no further attempt be made to resolve the difficulty.
The Minister speaks of deferring the ballot, but how long does he think a ballot should be deferred to allow what could be a small minority of workers to come to their senses and recognise that their interest lies within a larger union?

Mrs. Castle: The whole House enormously enjoyed the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who stung the right hon. Gentleman to rise in a desperate attempt to convince the House that the elaborate apparatus of these Clauses was a simple alternative to strikes.
I am the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a civilised society should be able to find an alternative to strike action when unions seek to enjoy the simple, basic right of combination, organisation and recognition by an employer. The right hon. Gentleman would have done far more to avoid recognition strikes if he had drawn up a Bill which reflected a passionate belief in trade unionism and which, instead of discouraging, had encouraged trade unionism and the recognition of unions. He would have done a great deal more if he had produced a code of industrial practice which set out as a head piece of its philosophy, as the Donovan Report did, that in a modern society a sane employer of course recognises trade unions and encourages trade unionism. We are still waiting for that kind of lead from the right hon. Gentleman.
Instead, we have this apparatus which he tells us is a simple alternative means of settling recognition disputes and therefore avoiding strikes. But the more we study it, the more we realise that we are exchanging a simple situation under which if unions want recognition they can organise and use their collective strength against the employer to secure it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that very often the existence of that collective strength and the threat to use it brings many an employer to his senses and solves the problem.
Unions are now being told that they are to be deprived of the use of that collective strength which has been the


simplest and most effective means yet of securing recognition. They will not, in exchange, be given what Donovan wanted them to be given and what I wanted them to be given—a straightforward right to recognition on the recommendation of the C.I.R. That has gone, and in its place a labyrinth of procedures has to be gone through when the employer is unwilling to recognise a union.
Our starting point should be the denunciation by this House of employers who are unwilling to recognise trade unions. They are pre-Donovan, almost pre-Ark, and should be denounced as such. If an employer is unwilling to recognise a union, the union cannot take action against him. Instead, it must first apply to the industrial court for an agency shop. The industrial court refers the application to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. has to hold a ballot to produce a majority which, even in the amended form we shall be discussing later, is a denial of democracy. If the union does not obtain the majority which the Government lay down, there can be no agency shop for two years. The union right has

totally disappeared. Even if the union wins the ballot and the agency shop is established after two years, it is constantly at risk from any dissident group or any group of non-unionists, and once again the majority ballot has to be faced.

The Amendment introduces a new and more elaborate impediment, a new delay. Now even the application to the C.I.R. and the Industrial Court can be delayed —not only if there is already a question in dispute, but if there is likely to be.

This is the last proof that this is not a Bill to smooth the path of industrial relations. It is a Bill produced by a Government which have got lost in their own legal tangle. The more they elaborate the Bill, the more nonsenses are created; and we then have to have more legal elaboration to deal with those nonsenses. This is why we shall divide the House on both these Amendments.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 284. Noes 253.

Division No. 443.]
AYES
[5.41 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Alison Michaet (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, Paul
Foster, Sir John


Amery, Rt Hn. Julian
Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fox, Marcus


Aster, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Gardner, Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cockeram, Eric
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Dr. Aian


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Coombs, Derek
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Goodhart, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Goodhew, Victor


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Gorst, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Critchley, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Gray, Hamish


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Green, Aian


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Grylls, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dean, Paul
Gummer, Selwyn


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Boscawen, Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dixon, Piers
Halt, John (Wycombe)


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Brewis, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Havers, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hay, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Fell, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks, Robert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fidler, Michael
Higgins, Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hiley, Joseph


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)






Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moate, Roger
Simeons, Charles


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James
Sinclair, Sir George


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernle
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holt, Miss Mary
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Soref, Harold


Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
More, Jasper
Spence, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sproat, lain


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


James, David
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kershaw, Anthony
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kilfedder, James
Osborn, John
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lane, David
Peel, John
Tilney, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trew, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Loveridge, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Luce, R. N.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Dame Joan


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


MacArthur, Ian
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


McCrindle, R. A.
Raison, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McLaren, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


McMaster, Stanley
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Warren, Kenneth


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Maddan, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Madel, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Maginnis, John E.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Younger, Hn. George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas



Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shelton, William (Clapham)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Butler Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Delargy, H. J.


Barnes, Michael
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dempsey, James


Barnett, Joel
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter


Beaney, Aian
Coleman, Donald
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Conlan, Bernard
Driberg, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bishop, E. S.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Dunnett, Jack


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cronin, John
Edelman, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arhur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bradley, Tom
Dalyell, Tam
Ellis, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. Georgs
English, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, Fred







Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Richard, Ivor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Foot. Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth
Roderick, Caewryn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil
Roper, John


Freeson, Reginald
McCann, John
Rose, Paul B.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Handing, William
Marsden, F.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stallard, A. W.


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Taverne, Dick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Ronald King
Urwin, T. W.


Irvin, Rt. Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Watkins, David


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, ALan (Swansea, W.)


Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Kerr, Russell
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kinnock, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lambie, David
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur



Lawson, George
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. John Golding and


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Leonard, Dick

Lords Amendment: No. 22 in page 9, line 22, after "ineffective" insert:
or
(b) such a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made in pursuance of the application, and would

in that event be likely, until settled, to make that agreement ineffective".

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 255.

Division No. 444.]
AYES
[5.50 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bainiel, Lord
Benyon, W.


Astor, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Berry, Hn. Anthony




Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airy


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boscawen, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Haselhurst, ALan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Buck, Antony
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Burden, F. A.
Holt, Miss Mary
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eatleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francls


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Jessell, Toby
Renten, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Coombs, Derek
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Lewis, Kenneth (RutLand)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Soref, Harold


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, lain


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Steel, David


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fenner, Mr. Peggy
MacmilLan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stokes, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glyn, Dr. ALan
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trew, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernle
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector
Vickers, Dame Joan


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)








Ward, Dame Irene
Wiggin, Jerry
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Warren, Kenneth
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn. George


weatherill, Bernard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Keith Speed and


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Allen, scholefield
Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashley, Jack
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David


Barnes, Michael
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Barnett, Joel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Beaney, Alan
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Bottemley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan. Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Ronald King


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Rt. Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hit. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson. Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwvnoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, S. O. (Merthvr Tydvil)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Delargy, H. J.
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)







Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Taverne, Dick
Wallace, George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, w.)
Watkins, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wellbeloved, James



Tinn, James
wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William
Mr. John Golding.


Tuck, Raphael

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 9, line 38, at end insert:
("or rights corresponding to negotiating rights")

6 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I understand that it will meet the convenience of the House if with Lords Amendment No. 24 we take Lords Amendment No. 284: In page 120, line 17, at end insert new Clause M—Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings).

Mr. Carr: I agree that it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 284 with Lords Amendment No. 24.
I think that I need say nothing about Lords Amendment No. 24 as the point has been discussed earlier. I will, therefore, move straight to Lords Amendment No. 284. The new Clause embodied in the Amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State to phase the coming into operation of certain provisions of the Bill relating to firms of a certain size. The object is to avoid overwhelming the National Industrial Relations Court and the Commission on Industrial Relations with a flood of applications in the early days.
Subsection (2) contains the provisions covered by this regulation-making power. They are provisions for an application to the court for an agency shop ballot, provided in Clauses 10(2) and 13; application to the Court for remedial action where a procedure agreement is either nonexistent or defective, provided in Clauses 35 and 41; application to the Court for reference to the Commission on Industrial Relations of questions relating to the

recognition of a sole bargaining agent, provided in Clause 43; application to the Court with a view to withdrawal of recognition, provided in Clause 49; and complaint to the Court of failure to disclose information, provided in Clause 98(1).
Those are the provisions which, in the proposed new Clause, give the Secretary of State power to regulate, by Order, the various provisions which apply, according to the size of an undertaking.
I wish to make a number of other points clear. Subsection (3) provides, in effect, that, having made the original Order, subsequent Orders may only reduce, not increase, the minimum number which has been specified. A Secretary of State would be prevented from removing from companies the right to these provisions which they already enjoy. The sole purpose is to fix the number of applications to the C.I.R. and the Court at a level which we believe will be manageable. As soon as that has been achieved, we shall be in a position to lower the threshold. The Secretary of State does not have power to raise the threshold.
Subsection (4) provides that the Orders shall be subject to affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the power can be used only after positive approval by this House and another place.
The reason for the Amendment is our concern that the Court and the Commission should not in the early days of the operation of this legislation be overwhelmed by a large number of applications under the provisions specified in subsection (2). It is bound to be a matter of guesswork what the case-load will be; but, in order to build up the caseload under these provisions at a manageable rate, we concluded that the best course would be to take the powers contained in the new Clause to limit applications initially to firms above a


certain size. When it becomes clear that the danger of overloading at any level is past, the Secretary of State will progressively be able to reduce the threshold to permit applications by smaller firms. I assure the House that this is the sole purpose of the new Clause.
It will be my intention to make all the provisions in the Bill available as widely and as quickly as possible. For the sake of good order, I believe that it is right to have this controlling mechanism over the number of cases and applications which may come forward and then to release that as we judge what the volume of applications will be. I hope that I have made it clear that that is the sole purpose of the new Clause.

Mr. Rose: For convenience, Lords Amendment No. 284 has been linked with Lords Amendment No. 24. The only thing that they have in common is that, to some extent, they both affect Clause 10. Other than that, they have nothing in common. However, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that this is the only way, given the guillotine, that we on this side of the House can be sure of having time to debate this particularly important Lords Amendment.
I do not know whether I should warn the Government in advance, but it seems that the wide-sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in the new Clause allow for the virtual repeal of large sections of the Bill in the likely event of the early election of a Labour Government. This would allow us to take action in advance of the repeal of the Bill, to which we all look forward. This may be classified information—I may be in breach of the official Labour secrets act —but I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to realise how wide-sweeping the new Clause. If only for that reason, one might be tempted to welcome it with loud applause, but there are serious reservations, and a good deal of explanation to be given by the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks about it being designed to phase the coming into operation of various provisions of the Bill.
During the debate in another place Lord Stow Hill said:
If I read the Amendment correctly, there is nothing in it to limit the operation of this order to a transitional or specified time. If

I have correctly understood its purpose, I imagine that a strict constitutionalist like the learned and noble Lord the Lord Chancellor would be disposed to agree with me that this is a sort of provision that we should accept only with great hesitation.
He went on to say:
If that is the case, surely it would be right to say that these powers, by statutory order, should not be exercised after say, a period of one year, eighteen months or two years."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, l0th June, 1971; Vol. 320, c. 4856.]
I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, whatever his intention may be. That does not seem to be the effect of the Amendment as it has been drafted.
I think that the Amendment reveals a number of weaknesses in the Government's case and I propose to pinpoint three fundamental ones. First, the Government are clearly concerned, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, "to avoid overwhelming the National Industrial Relations Court and the C.I.R. with a flood of applications". The right hon. Gentleman is worried about a flood of damaging and irrelevant complaints to a body which is ill-equipped to deal with the delicate fabric of industrial relations. He knows, and he must now acknowledge, the worst fears of this side of the House, that it will be the less enlightened employer, the old-fashioned employer, perhaps the antediluvian employer, who will take advantage of the Bill to make complaints to the Industrial Court. I have a shrewd suspicion that it is with that in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has reserved these powers, because they were not in the original Bill. There must be some good reason for their inclusion now, and the right hon. Gentleman confesses to this fear of overloading the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R.
The second weakness that it reveals is that there are apparently some magic figures. We heard a remarkably witty speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in which he quoted from "Alice-in-Wonderland". We had "Catch 22", and now we seem to be going into the realms of bingo, because the magic figure in the Order is not known, and it will not be known, and below that magic figure, in certain respects, the Bill will not apply.
The third criticism follows from that, that the magic figure itself may change, so that what is a magic figure one day


will not be a magic figure on another, although it can change in only one direction, increasingly to bring within the ambit of the Bill those very sections of industry, those very employers, which the right hon. Gentleman is loth to include ab initio because he knows that the danger of including them is they are precisely the kind of employers who could wreck good industrial relations by overwhelming the court with a flood of applications.
A number of questions arise on this, and perhaps later on the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the matter in greater detail. So far, he has treated this as though it were a minor debate. This is a major debate of widespread importance, and the right hon. Gentleman has a number of questions to answer.
First, the right hon. Gentleman must tell the House what he has in mind as the criterion for the numbers in an establishment which it is proposed to examine when the Bill comes into operation. What figure has he in mind as the minimum appropriate for specific industries?
Second, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that that will be changed? Third, can he give us some indication of what he has in mind about the Clauses that are to be exempted. I should not say infinite, but certainly there is a large permutation of possibilities with regard to numbers on the one hand and Clauses on the other. One does not need to be an expert in filling in football pools to know that a large permutation is possible here.
6.15 p.m.
Who is to benefit from the right hon. Gentleman's magnificent gift to the trade union movement, as he seems to term the Bill? If the Bill is so beneficial, why exclude anyone from its benefits? It is said that the Bill will bring industrial peace, and yet the right hon. Gentleman feels that the benefits of this Measure ought not to be given to everyone. It seems unfair that some sections of industry are to be excluded from this wonderful Bill. It is a curious commentary on the Government's confidence in their own Measure, and although I accept that a draft Order must first be laid before the House, there is always

the disadvantage with this sort of procedure that, by delegating the power, when the ultimate Order comes before the House—and I agree that it is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure —one is not able to amend it in the way that one is able to amend a Bill in Committee and on Report.
The provisions apply over an astonishingly broad field and give wide powers to the Secretary of State to exempt or to include, in an arbitrary fashion, whole sections of workers from various areas of industry, according to the size of the enterprise. The quotation which I read to the House from Lord Stow Hill's speech undermines the contention that this is no more than a phasing in.
I now propose to deal individually with the Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The first is Clause 10(2). As the right hon. Gentleman said, this Clause covers an application by a trade union, a joint negotiating panel or an employer to the industrial court for an agency shop agreement, and the hostility of this side of the House was expressed only too well yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and many others. There is no doubt where we stand on the agency shop issue. We reject the damaging effect of substituting the agency shop for the closed shop principle. If the agency shop is so beneficial, it is odd that there is this provision in the Bill. Why make it possible to deny the benefits of the agency shop to unspecified sections of industry by means of this machinery? Does it mean that the Government have doubts about the effect on the stability of industry, and particularly the smaller establishments, of the agency shop principle?
If that is not the case, why have any exemptions at all? There is more than a little concern on the part of the Government, having heard the cogent arguments of my hon. Friends who understand the day-to-day workings of industry, about the disruptive effect of denying the right of representation by the union of their choice to many workers, which in effect is what the agency shop will mean.
I do not want to reopen the whole question of the agency shop. I should probably stray beyond the bounds of order if I were to do so. But I should like an explanation of how the right hon.


Gentleman intends to use the powers given by the Amendment in relation to Clauses 13 and 10(2), because the two go together. Clause 13 refers to the possible exception of the application for a ballot, and it follows naturally from Clause 10(2). Basically the same questions apply.

The Amendment applies also to Clause 35, and this, surely is fundamental to the Bill. During the Second Reading, in Committee and on Report there was bitter opposition from this side of the House because we were opposed to what we referred to as the fictitious agreement clauses. I welcome the fact that it would appear again, even if veiled and disguised, that the Government have woken up to the danger of trying to impose fictitious procedural agreements upon unions against their wishes and, what is more, adding insult to injury by asking them to monitor or police them.

I hope that the Secretary of State will use this power to apply the Clause to Clause 35 to exempt all enterprises with less than 100,000 employees, because then in one fell swoop he would be doing away with the principle, which is enshrined in the Bill, which I as a lawyer find the most objectionable, although I recognise that many of my hon. Friends will find other Clauses which they will choose as their prize for being objectionable.

If the fictitious agreement procedure is good for Henry Ford—we all know what is good for Henry Ford—why is it not good for Joe Bloggs who runs a small workshop in my constituency? The Government say that it is necessary. Why is it more necessary for some than for others?

I rather suspect that what is happening is that the Government are now recoiling from the results of their own decision to ride roughshod over this most delicate field of industrial relations, and perhaps we are witnessing—I put it no higher than this—a suppressed desire to repent before it is too late in respect of enforced proceedings.

The Amendment similarly applies to Clause 41 which extends in turn
The provisions of section 35 to 40 of this Act … to a composite unit".

The same observations must apply. [Interruption.] I think that I heard one

of my hon. Friends mutter, "What are Sections 35 to 40?" This is typical of the labyrinthine nature of this legislation. It is worse than the Hampton Court Maze. We have to indulge in the most remarkable exercise of cross-references. For a Bill dealing with industrial relations, a Bill which is supposed to be intelligible to ordinary people in industry who are not trained lawyers, I find the whole structure remarkable.

Clauses 35 to 40, which are the paving of the way for the fictitious agreement which culminates in the final imposition of the fictitious agreement, are extended to the composite unit by Clause 41. One could go on all day in this way.

I should have thought that this was precisely the area where the Government would have wished to apply the power, if at all.

I again ask: if this provision is so beneficial, why allow it to be excluded from those who, the Government hope, will benefit the most? I find the Government's whole position on this entirely illogical.

The Amendment applies also to Clause 43 which is entitled—
Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent.

Again it seems that the Government are turning their backs on the abyss of the agency shop. I do not blame them for for that, in view of what we have heard in these debates. Why do it in this administrative manner with these imposed exceptions by Order? I should have thought that the manner of dealing with this would be for the Government to acknowledge here and now that the agency shop in its entirety should be scrapped, it is entirely inappropriate to British industrial relations and has no place in a Bill dealing with them.

I think, though, that the Amendment, because it gives us opportunities when we become the Government to take advantage in this manner, poses a dilemma for this side of the House. We cannot oppose the Amendment in its entirety, because it allows for some mitigation at least with regard to smaller, and then smaller and smaller, units, of some of the most offensive parts of the Bill.

Clause 49, which must follow logically —I admit the Secretary of State's logic here—is headed—
Application to Industrial Court with a view to withdrawal of recognition.

In theory it would be possible to apply the Clause to Clause 49 alone. If it were applied in isolation, it could ossify an existing agency shop if it were invoked after an agency shop had been created. Let us assume that an agency shop had been created under the Bill and that then the Government invoked the power. If they invoked it merely in relation to Clause 49, this would negative the intention of the Bill. I hope that it is not the Secretary of State's intention that it will be used in that way, but he knows that, whatever his intention is, it could be used in that way. This is another example of shoddy drafting, because it would seem to me that Clause 49 ought to be referred to only after the original Clause was covered by the Amendment. I should therefore like an assurance from the Secretary of State that there is no intention of using the Clause in that way.

The Amendment applies, finally, to Clause 91(1)(b)—again the usual labyrinth that we have come to expect in the Bill. This refers to the contravention of the duty under Clause 54 to disclose information to trade union officials and representatives. In this case again there is a danger that, if this were to be taken in isolation, the application of the Amendment to Clause 98(1)(b) protects only employers, and it will protect employers below a certain size—as yet we do not know what size that will be —from the duties and obligations imposed by Clause 54(1). Those duties are to provide information without which the trade union representatives would be, to a material extent, impeded in conducting collective bargaining. This also concerns information which the employer ought to disclose in accordance with good relations and good industrial practice.

Lord Gardiner said this about the matter:
This is simply stopping the employees of the small man from getting information from him at all. I should have thought that Clause 98(1)(b) perhaps stands in a rather different case. I am only a little surprised by it all because I was not envisaging people going

to the Industrial Court. I think they would all go to the industrial tribunal, but no similar provision is made for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th June, 1971; c. 487.]

I think that the very appropriate remarks of Lord Gardiner, although I came to an independent conclusion of my own accord, are correct, that invoking the Amendment in relation to Clause 98(1)(b) would be damaging to the small man in respect of his getting information, which is one of the very few positive features which we on this side accept.

Mr. Harold Walker: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noted that there is already a restriction in Clause 55 about the size of the undertaking. Does it not strike my hon. Friend as odd that there should be this further restriction, all of which tends to go against what we were led to believe was one of the constructive and beneficial aspects of the Bill, namely, the requirement to disclose information?

Mr. Rose: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I noted what seemed to me to be a duplication. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is a duplication of two Clauses which allow for precisely the same thing. I did not want to expand the point at great length because we ourselves have an Amendment dealing with this very matter when it arises on the other Clause.
It seems that there are now two ways in which the smaller employer may be exempted from the obligation to provide certain items of information. This provision was in a Bill with which my hon. Friend was connected when he was at the Department, and I know that my hon. Friend was particularly concerned about the question of the right to information. As this is one of the few aspects of the Bill which are constructive and which we were prepared to accept in that spirit, we should have an explanation.
Finally, although the Amendment may be for administrative convenience, it makes no sense. There is no logic in the application of what are supposed to be deeply held principles on the other side of the House. The principles are being applied to some employers but not to others. It seems to allow a quite arbitrary power. Since in all but one of these cases the arbitrary power can only diminish the generally harmful effects of the Bill, we on this side of the


House will not oppose it, although we find it a very strange Amendment indeed. To my mind, an Amendment of this kind is calculated to bring the Bill into even more ridicule and contempt, if that is possible, than the ridicule and contempt in which it is now held not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but by the trade union movement.
6.30 p.m.
If I have taken some time to speak on this Amendment it is because I believe this Clause underlines the fundamental fallacies over the whole range of items in a Bill which is entirely damaging, although it may be used to mitigate some of the damaging effects of this Bill, and it is for that reason that we do not oppose it. Nevertheless it helps to underline the fact that this Bill is unnecessary.
I only wish the right hon. Gentleman would apply this provision to all enterprises below a very large figure. Then we would be able to get rid of some of the most offensive aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Ashton: This is a remarkable Amendment. We have often heard the Secretary of State refer to the Bill as a highway code. Yet we have a situation in which the Government bring in an Amendment because the courts will not be able to handle the volume of work which the right hon. Gentleman expects to exist when the Bill becomes law. Suppose we had a highway code, 15 paragraphs of which related to speeding and drunken driving; the right hon. Gentleman would have power to ignore those offences from a certain date because the courts could not handle them. In the case of many other Bills we have had this initial volume of problems, but never have we had this situation in which the Minister has had the power to say "We shall ignore these problems. The courts will not handle them because there are too many."
Is this to be the situation in relation to the Government's White Paper on rents, when rent officers will be snowed under with applications for fair rents? Will the Secretary of State say, "This will not apply to certain houses"? This gives the right hon. Gentleman a tremendous amount of power. I do not say that the power will be abused, but justice ought to be seen to be done. There is no justice in saying that these cases will

not be handled because the courts will not find it possible to do so. If the courts cannot handle these cases immediately, obviously we need more courts.

Amendment No. 284 states:
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application …".

That is a definite statement. If it had said that the Secretary of State had power to delay an application for three months because of the volume of work or that the Secretary of State would give priority to certain cases, we would understand. But it is not a question of delaying for three months after which, the Government having got rid of the problems at Fords, at the docks and at Halewood, they would be in a position to deal with the cases which had been delayed. The Amendment does not say that at all. It says that the Industrial Court shall not entertain this sort of dispute because the courts will be overloaded. This is a dangerous situation to get into.

A firm may employ only 50 men and, therefore, it would be regarded as a small firm. But it might be a chain link firm supplying a tiny component for the motor car industry. About two years ago there was a firm, Girlings, in which there was an argument as to who was going to turn a handle; it involved seven men, but it affected thousands. If it be that in a case involving a firm like Girlings, in which perhaps 100 people work, the Secretary of State had the power to refer the matter back so that the application would not be entertained at all, what sort of situation would we be in?

Amendment No. 284 says:
No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
It does not say that the Resolution has to be debated. We have many instances in this House of a Prayer being put on the Order Paper against a Statutory Instrument. It happens frequently. I understand that two or three years ago when a Prayer was entered against a Statutory Instrument or an Order, it automatically had to be debated in this Chamber—for instance, the matter of judges' pay.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Amendment. It says


that a draft of the Order has to be approved by a Resolution. There is no question of having to pray against an Order. The Order has to be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses. There is no question of its getting through without debate.

Mr. Ashton: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance on that point. The fact remains that if some of us in this House cannot understand it, there must be many people on the shop floor who are in a far worse state.
The heaviest burden will arise in connection with unfair dismissals. The right hon. Gentleman never mentioned this at all. If there is to be a backlog clogging the courts it will arise from unfair dismissals, when everybody will think that he is being victimised and sacked by the boss because of his trade union activities.
The right hon. Gentleman's reference to such matters as the withdrawal of recognition and disclosure of information is very important. Because a factory employs only 60 people, are we to say that they shall not have the information given to them if the factory is going to be closed down? There are many examples where the closure of a factory affecting 100 people may not be of major importance to a place the size of Birmingham or London, but in a small mining town the dismissal of 100 people could be a very major event indeed. If people were to say "We are going on strike because of a merger and because of these redundancies, and we shall strike unless somebody comes forward with information", they would be justified in taking this sort of industrial action. Yet under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in the Amendment he would have the power to say "This is not important. The courts are already bogged down with cases involving Fords and the conditions at the docks and, therefore, it will not be possible for the union to make an application to the court for disclosure of information."
I am making a very serious allegation, and I do so because the information that we have had is not comprehensive. Some of us are rather suspicious that in certain cases—as we have seen this afternoon in relation to the Upper Clyde shipyards—

we shall get no information whatever from the management. Matters of major importance may affect our trade unions and yet apparently we shall not be able to get a hearing at the court because, although there is no way of blocking the application going to the court, the excuse will be made that the courts are overburdened with work.
It is not good enough to bring in legislation to which we are opposed and then to say that the channels of protest embodied in the legislation will not apply to certain categories of firms because not enough people work there. If the Minister says this is a highway code, it should be treated as a highway code. It should apply to everybody from the date of its operation, whether a person is riding a bicycle or is driving a heavy lorry.
In the mid-'sixties we had a fair rent system under which rent officers, courts and other machinery were available to everyone who wished to apply for assistance. I admit there was a great deal of pressure at times, but at least people knew that they could have their cases heard. If it was possible then, it should be possible under this Measure. In other words, if special courts are being established, they should be applicable to and at the disposal of everybody from the moment the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Secretary of State was less than fair to the House in not giving the slightest explanation of why he has chosen certain parts of the Bill to be deferred for the time being as distinct from other parts, which will come into effect as soon as the Measure becomes law.
While I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will reply in greater detail, it was unfair of him to expect us to have this debate without a proper explanation of his reasons for taking this step. He has left us very much in the dark. We in Lancashire are becoming used to a bit of fast bowling in the dark in our cricket matches these days, but we cannot sustain an intelligent debate on this subject unless we are given far more information.
The right hon. Gentleman has always insisted that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not have an immediate effect on industrial relations. But he has all


along claimed that its long-term effects will be beneficial. We are left asking for how long we must wait for those beneficial effects. Apparently we will have to wait a considerable time, but the length of that time nobody seems to know.
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he is not being fair to the Prime Minister either? Last weekend the Prime Minister claimed that the contents of this Measure had already had a huge effect on the dimunition of days lost through strikes. Indeed, he said that the Chancellor's third Budget would not have been possible but for this Bill. Do we take it that the Prime Minister knew nothing about this latest proposal of the Secretary of State and that the Chancellor will withdraw the measures in his mini-Budget?
Frankly, if there was any relevance in what the Prime Minister said, and I have serious doubts about that, that relevance has now disappeared. In this connection, is the Prime Minister aware that many of the Opposition Amendments which the Secretary of State refused to accept when the Bill was going through its Committee and Report stages were nothing like as drastic in their effect as this one?

Mr. John Fraser: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, who have never spoken of the number of days lost through strikes having been reduced. They never speak of "strikes" but of "stoppages".

Mr. Lee: I accept that.
As I have said previously, this Bill will not have much effect on large firms which, by and large, have their own code of conduct. I recall that we even cancelled out the effects of the York Memorandum; we would not entertain such nonsense for many years. Any large firm with proper negotiating arrangements will never entertain this Measure but will use its own internal negotiating arrangements.
If there are areas of industry which might be affected by the Bill, I assume that they are not to have the so-called benefits of the parts of the Measure which are now going into abeyance. It seems, therefore, that even before the

Bill becomes law the right hon. Gentleman is going back on at least two-thirds of the claims that he and his colleagues have been making about the effects that this legislation will ultimately have.
6.45 p.m.
We must conclude, therefore, that the firms which will be for the most part affected by the Bill—this is according to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—will be the smaller ones, which are being held back from making application. Thus, we are left wondering what this exercise is all about. I would be surprised, in any event, if many applications were received from those firms which are to be deferred.
We must consider Clause 98(1)(b), which will prevent small employers from giving the information on which their employees will rely for negotiating purposes. These will be the very firms from which this information will be needed. As I said, we in the bigger firms have our own ways of ensuring that we have the necessary information. We have facilities to obtain the information we need. I am left wondering whether the Prime Minister was aware that his right hon. Friend—

Mr. Orme: Speak of the devil.

Mr. Lee: My words must have struck home. The Prime Minister has joined us. To avoid tedious repetition, I will summarise the few remarks I made about him. I said that he was undoubtedly misled before making his speech in which he said that the third attempt at a Budget, the so-called mini-Budget, in nine months had been made possible only because of the provisions of this Bill.
I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman had been misled or whether we could now expect the Chancellor to withdraw the contents of his mini-Budget, bearing in mind that we have been told that many of the provisions in the Bill are not to be enforced for a time that is yet to be specified. No doubt the Prime Minister will be making another speech this weekend saying that when he made his earlier remarks he was in complete ignorance of what his colleagues were planning behind his back.
It seems that the firms which, for the time being, will be excluded—

Mr. Orme: The Prime Minister is leaving.

Mr. Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for keeping me informed of the Prime Minister's movements. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to prepare the speech which I suggested he should make.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman is much more likely to be sailing round the coast next weekend than making speeches on this subject.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend must be fair. The right hon. Gentleman occasionally takes time off from that exercise.
I would have thought that if the Secretary of State really believed in his Bill, he would be doing precisely the opposite to what he is doing now. I do not believe in the Bill, though I am all in favour of employers giving information to their employees. We campaigned for this for years. I could understand the position if the right hon. Gentleman had said that no firm over, say, 500 employees would have these benefits for a period of time. But to say the opposite and to rob people in smaller firms by not enabling them to have this information seems to make a nonsense of a great deal of what he has said during the passage of the Bill.
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put a figure to the time factor. We have had no undertaking from him. We do not even know his thinking in this respect. Is he thinking in terms of weeks, months or years, or on what kind of basis must we calculate? What kind of thing must the firms calculate upon? If I were on the management side of one of the smaller firms, I would begin to wonder where I stood.
We know that many smaller employers are genuinely trying to get into line on negotiating techniques. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a point about the enormous importance of small firms which undertake subcontracting and other work for bigger firms. We know that great industries can be held up by disputes in very small firms upon which they depend for essential components. If there is a dispute in one of those smaller firms, we know how it snowballs and eventually many thousands

of people can be laid off because of the lack of components. I am surprised that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman is differentiating between smaller and larger firms. He knows well from his knowledge of industry that one cannot these days differentiate between the firm which has 100 or 200 people and a bigger firm when there is this interconnection of the final product for which the bigger firm is responsible.
When all this becomes more widely known, there will be misunderstanding and amazement. Industry knows that the Government are trying to get the Bill on to the Statute Book within a week or so from now. They have said so. The truncated remains which will be operative after these Amendments have been made to the Bill will affect a very large proportion of the smaller firms. It should not be forgotten that the party opposite are always telling us that industry still depends upon the small firms. Small employers have been swotting up the Bill or have had their legal advisers explaining it to them. Some of them, indeed, had the benefit of the Solicitor-General's advice on the matter. They have based themselves on the fact that the Bill would become an Act before the House goes into recess. Now, they learn that although it will soon become an Act, large and important parts of it will not apply to them until a later date which is unknown to them.
There has already been great confusion in industry in consequence, not only among trade unions, but among employers, Now, we are to have this added impost upon a large section of employers. Had we on this side moved Amendments of this sort—I think we did, but they were rejected out of hand—they would certainly have been described as wrecking Amendments. I am not complaining that the right hon. Gentleman is having second thoughts on large parts of the Bill—I wish he had had second thoughts before he introduced it—but as he has come a little nearer to what we and the Trades Union Congress have been saying, the logical consequence of what he has said is that he should, at the very least, defer the operation of the Bill until the whole of it becomes operative. It would please my right hon. and hon. Friends and me far more, however, if he would follow the


logic of what he is doing one stage further and withdraw the Bill altogether.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the numbers involved in applying the orders. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) has said, the Minister badly wants the Bill within the next seven days. He expects it to receive Royal Assent next week. If that is so, he must have an idea when he will bring the different parts of the Bill into operation. I doubt whether we shall reach the last Clause of the Bill, which deals with the time when its different parts are to be brought into operation, but I should like the Minister to say during this debate what dates he has in mind for bringing in the different parts of the Bill. His powers in this respect are far-reaching. He has the power by Statutory Instrument even to change the provisions of his Bill. He ought to tell us when he proposes to bring its various provisions into effect.
Under the powers that the right hon. Gentleman wants under the Amendment, presumably the Court may operate without any limitation as to numbers and later he can introduce a restriction concerning the numbers. After that, he can gradually bring down the number even further. The restrictions on applications to the Industrial Court will relate mainly to claims for an agency shop and claims for recognition.
The right hon. Gentleman told us on an earlier Amendment that it would be an unfair industrial practice to go on strike to seek an agency shop because he said, the right would exist to make a peaceful application to the National Industrial Relations Court. If, however, people are debarred from applying to the Court because they are members of an undertaking which, because of its size, the court will not entertain, they have neither right nor remedy. In these circumstances, they could commit an unfair industrial practice. They could be mulcted for damages but, at the same time, they cannot make their application to the Court. It would be interesting, therefore, to know whether the disability parts of the Bill concerning unfair industrial practices will be removed in respect of employees who do not even have the remedy of applying to the Industrial Court.
Thirdly, there is a problem of achieving social justice and equality for people who work in small undertakings. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise—perhaps not on this Bill, but he is Minister of Employment—that low pay and poor conditions of employment often relate to very small undertakings. He knows that wages councils often apply in areas where trade unions cannot organise strongly and where even the law has to create a kind of agency shop with minimum conditions of employment and minimum remuneration.
There is a real problem in redressing the balance of power between those who work in large undertakings, where there are powerfully organised unions which get a good deal for the workers, and people who work in small undertakings, where union organisation is difficult and, consequence, low pay can be—although not always—a feature of their employment. It would be a mistake to leave small undertakings of that kind out of account, because they are often the places where social justice needs to be done and where strengthening of the trade union movement is badly needed to achieve social justice.
One of the purposes of the wages council regulation provisions can be removed where the Minister is satisfied that there is strong trade union representation. It should be the job of any Minister of Employment to encourage trade union representation and organisation and to encourage union sponsorship of minimum conditions of employment in small undertakings which often suffer from low pay, suppression and repression by employers.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not fall into the error, although he will fall into other errors, of thinking that large undertakings can be allowed to go ahead but that these rights should not extend to small undertakings.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not wish to detain the House much longer but we have had a rather full debate, as is quite proper, and the House is reluctant, without full explanations, to give to a Minister enabling powers of so far-reaching a nature in such an extremely important Measure as this.
I have two questions which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer. My hon. Friends have largely confined their remarks to the exclusion, if only temporarily, of certain parts of the Bill from the N.I.R.C. The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose was to prevent both the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R. from being overwhelmed by the initial case load, and I can see his problem. Can he indicate what the future capacity of the C.I.R. will be, particularly taking into account its present imbalance and weakness arising from the refusal of the unions to participate in its work because of the introduction of this Bill? The introduction of the Bill has had a crippling effect on the C.I.R., of which we once had, quite legitimately, such bright hopes. Indeed, in a short time, it had justified those hopes.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has obviously been selective in picking out certain provisions in the Bill which will be temporarily restricted from the operations of the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R. What criteria did he use in determining them? He seems to have selected some while leaving others fully exposed.

Mr. R. Carr: By leave of the House, I will try to deal with some of the points raised, beginning with the closely connected questions put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). He asked me to indicate the future capacity of the C.I.R. Its capacity to do a certain volume of work is not affected by the regrettable and, I believe, totally misguided decision of the T.U.C. so far to advise its member unions not to allow any of their members to serve upon it. I have already appointed the chairman and deputy chairman designate of the C.I.R. in its new form, and I intend to appoint other members as soon as possible. There will be plenty of room left within the maximum membership permissible for the day, which I hope will not be long delayed, when the unions decide to let their members serve on it and their membership to participate, therefore, in the fullest sense.
The size of the C.I.R. and its staffing will enable it to play a full part in tackling the volume of work. I agree that, to get the most out of the organisation for the good of the country, and above

all for the good of the trade union membership, it will benefit from trade union membership. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for everyone, not least for the 10 million trade union members throughout the country.
The capacity will be related to the complexity of the tasks which the C.I.R. is to undertake. But that, of course, is difficult to forecast. We are moving into new procedures. They are certainly complicated. We believe that the complication is necessary, although no doubt that is a matter of debate. But because they are new and complicated, it is difficult not only to judge the number of cases which will come before the C.I.R. but how long each will take and the volume of work which each will require.
Secondly, the provisions selected in the Amendment have been chosen because they are, by and large, possibly without exception, ones which will involve the C.I.R. It is the overloading of the C.I.R. that I am most concerned to avoid. I believe that it is in the interests of all that I should do so.
I do not know whether I please or disappoint hon. Members opposite in saying that the Amendment is not a means of delaying the implementation of the Bill but a means of expediting it. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment which would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying the bringing into force of any provision in the Bill as long as he chose. The Amendment is an instrument to enable the delay period to be shorter than would otherwise be necessary, because if the Secretary of State can implement in stages and not be faced with the prospect of all or nothing, he can make a start on implementation more quickly than if it is an all-or-nothing provision. I must be sure that the machinery is sufficiently well established and worked in to be able to cope with the load which the C.I.R. will eventually get from everyone. Thus, if I have greater flexibility in being able to say that, to begin with, this provision will only apply to firms above a certain size, I can introduce the procedure in stages rather than have to wait until there is an all-or-nothing situation.

Mr. Rose: Therefore, in this Amendment, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he would be able to delay to a less


extent the implementation of these Clauses? If that is the case, I am sure that my hon. Friends would be strongly tempted and would decide to vote against the Amendment.

Mr. Carr: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman frightens me very much by that. I regard the Amendment as enabling me to speed up rather than delay the implementation of the Bill.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It can be used to expedite, as my right hon. Friend has said, but it can also be used to delay if he is inclined. Surely it is a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. It might save a vote if he said that it could be used to delay as well.

Mr. Carr: I would rather run the terrible risk of a Division than create any suggestion that there is any intention on our part to delay the implementation of any part of this Bill. As I have said, it is our intention to make all the provisions of the Bill available as widely as possible and as quickly as possible because we believe this to be good for all sizes of undertakings. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), but we are not having second thoughts. We are not renegging in any way—quite the contrary.
Listening to some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, realising that we were told at the beginning that the Opposition apparently did not wish to oppose the Amendment, and recalling all we heard, yesterday and today, about the urgent need to get to the really important things, I have wondered exactly how serious hon. Members opposite are. The artificiality, the triviality, the inconsistency, the unnecessary prolongation of long arguments by hon. Members opposite bear all the stamp of a party which does not know what to say next and is deliberately trying to play out time.

Mr. John Prescott: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point but I do not agree. Yesterday, I dealt exclusively with an Amendment which was extremely important to my union, the National Union of Seamen. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give an answer to it. Even when I asked him why he had not given an answer, he still refused to give me one. That is an unproductive way to debate Amendments.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker. We are taking Lords Amendment No. 24 and Lords Amendment No. 284. Could the Division on the latter take place tonight and not on Wednesday night?

Mr. Speaker: The Division on No. 284 cannot take place until we reach that Amendment, and that will be after we have disposed of those before it.

Mr. Ashton: But we may discuss it now?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, hon. Members may discuss it with Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Carr: I do not know the matters to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was referring. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was discussing the matter with the hon. Gentleman, but I was not myself concerned. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was in the House for the great majority of yesterday, but he made the speech which he has mentioned at a time when I was not in the Chamber, and I am therefore not sure about the points he was making, but I know that they did not concern the Amendment which we are now debating.
The remarks which I have just made were directed at speeches about these Amendments and not to other Amendments which may have been discussed earlier. The inconsistency was marked. What is it about which the Opposition complain? That I am proposing to apply these powers, or that I am not? They keep saying that these powers are objectionable, that they are all bad, and yet they complain because in the first place I shall apply them only to larger companies and take some time before getting to the smaller companies. I should have thought that if they regarded the powers as bad, they would want me to be as slow as I could.

Mr. Rose: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, why does he not include a time limit? If he inserted a time limit of one year or two years, or whatever, one would accept his argument, but without a time limit he knows that five years from now he would have the power to exempt a whole number of Clauses from operation. What we are


saying is that there is a basic inconsistency in his argument. As I said earlier, why is what is good for a large company not good for a small company when it is the small companies in particular that need help in industrial relations?

Mr. Carr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not as stupid as he appears to be wishing to make out at the moment. I have said several times that it is good in our view for all companies of all sizes. I want to make all the provisions of the Bill available as widely as possible as quickly as possible. There is no time limit in the Amendment, because if I knew how long it would take, what the case load would be in advance, I should not have to have these flexible powers; powers could be written in. It is because nobody can forecast that it is right to have flexibility.
We will start by making these provisions available to companies above a certain size. [Interruption.] With due respect to the hon. Member for Don-caster and to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who, as usual, talks from a sitting position, we must start from the top and work down, because the largest numbers of companies are of the smallest size. I want the Bill to be available to the smaller companies as quickly as possible, but we must start with the fewer and work down to the broader base of the pyramid, to the larger numbers, as quickly as we can manage.

Mr. Orme: It is a political decision.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member, speaking from a sitting position, says that it is a political decision. That shows the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite. When a decision is left in the hands of courts, they say that it is wrong and that it should be taken not by the courts, but as a political decision. Whenever it is left in the hands of the Government and Parliament, that is to say, it is a political decision, they say that that is wrong, and that it should be somebody else's decision. No matter what one says, they say it is wrong. One of the great features of all these debates is that whereas the Opposition are very good at saying what they believe to be wrong, they never, never, say what they would do and never, never, give a positive suggestion. They are completely destructive.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Could we leave it to the employers and trade unions?

Mr. Carr: That is what we have been doing for a very long time. It was because in certain areas of our industry that was failing in its old form to such a large extent that the Labour Party when in power itself introduced legislation, itself introduce the White Paper "In Place of Strife", although we know that it did not go on with it and we know how much the country has suffered because it did not go on with it.

Mr. Russell Kerr: rose—

Mr. Carr: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kerr: But I am standing now.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman cannot, by occasionally rising to his feet, suddenly acquire the right to make me give way.

Mr. Prescott: Lie down.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carr: It is the Government's intention to make all these provisions available as widely and as quickly as possible. It would not be serving the interests of those who wish to make use of the provisions to allow an enormous waiting list to pile up.
Therefore, we believe that we should start gradually and, as we see the case load that builds up, and as soon as we see that it is manageable at one threshold of size of company, and I assure the House that the original threshold will be measured in hundreds and not thousands, we shall bring in another Order—and amending Orders can only reduce the threshold and not increase it—and make all the provisions available to a larger number of smaller companies. As soon as we see that the caseload is manageable at that lower threshold, we shall bring in a further Order and reduce it again. It is the purpose of the Government and our firm intention to make all these provisions available to everybody as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rose: In the past the Secretary of State as always argued the case on the basis that there would be very few cases when there would be recourse to the courts. He is now saying that he expects


a flood of cases of such magnitude that he has to have sweeping powers of this kind to make exemptions over a period. What does he have in mind? Is he saying that there will be such a volume of cases before the courts that this provision will be necessary? If not, will he explain why is it necessary? Would he please say whether he intends to use some of these powers in isolation, or only across the board?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is a little difficult to make understand today. This provision is not because I expect vast numbers of cases. What I am saying is that I cannot forecast, and nor, I think, can anybody forecast. I do not believe that a vast number of applications will be made, but it is important to make sure that when applications come forward, the capacity of the institution is such that it can cope with applications with reasonable despatch. It would not be a good thing to have long waiting lists and long delays. I believe that the new institutions, new procedures and new laws are much better, and in the interests of the whole country should be introduced as quickly as possible, but gradually and under control. When I can see the rate at which the applications come forward in respect of the first threshold I can judge how to reduce that threshold. That is the orderly and sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Russell Kerr: May we have the Minister's thinking clear on the matter? Does he or does he not agree that most of the problems, pro rata, occur in the smaller firms rather than the bigger ones, who have learned better ways?

Mr. Carr: Anyone who has studied the history of industrial disputes in this country in recent years will have found that most of the serious troubles—where the ordinary voluntary arrangements have unfortunately failed to find a solution— have cropped up in the larger companies. On the whole it is in the larger companies that the most intractable disputes have occurred.

Mr. Orme: That is why the right hon. Gentleman wants to attack the unions.

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member will consider some of the most intractable disputes that have arisen—the while collar recognition problem was one, and it

occurred in its most acute form in the steel industry—he will realise that they arose in the big organisations and not the little ones. It is wrong to imagine that the sort of problems with which these provisions are designed to deal occur most frequently and in their most intractable form in the smaller companies.

Mr. Ashton: On building sites.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Members says "On building sites". They are the sort of building sites where large firms and not small firms are engaged. The submission that the major trouble occurs in small firms is not justified.
Nevertheless, I want the provisions to be available to firms of all sizes as quickly as possible. I repeat that it is our intention to make them available to all sizes of firms as quickly as possible, and to reduce the threshold limit. These are not arbitarary powers; they require affirmative Resolutions of each House. Each Order can only increase the number of firms to which these powers are available, the Amendment specifically excludes the possibility of decreasing them.
I fear that hon. Members opposite will be disappointed if they believe that they can use these provisions to repeal the Act bit by bit, one day—which I feel will never come about.
I commend the Amendment. It is sensible for good order, and it is in the interests of those who will want to use these procedures to make sure that there will not be long waiting periods, but we must introduce them gradually, in the way provided for in the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12

EFFECT OF BALLOT UNDER SECTION 11

Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 10, line 13, leave out from "that" to "have" in line 14 and insert:
either a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot or not less than two-thirds of those who voted in it".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out 'either'.
At this point I want to make it obsolutely clear that if we reach Amendment No. 284 we shall wish to register our opposition to it.
We heard earlier from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would develop new and complicated procedures. Nobody in the House or outside it would disagree with that statement. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in a speech which was brilliant and funny at the same time, showed clearly the hurdles that trade unionists will have to overcome before the stage is reached at which the agency shop can be put into operation. The provisions in the Clause concerning balloting represent a further hurdle for the trade unions.
In the other place this issue was debated at some length. The Government have some justification for arguing that the Lords Amendment represents a concession to the various arguments and debates on Amendments in respect of which promises of consideration were made. We believe that a very important principle is involved. We are debating a method of voting that Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, in the other place, was unprecedented in British public life. The proposed voting system is unique. It goes against what we have always understood to be the British democratic system.
The provision concerning those eligible to vote and the provision concerning the proportion of two-thirds do not apply in any other important constitutional situation. The right hon. Member may fall back on the argument that the miners' union now has a proposal for a two-thirds majority—which, incidentally, it has recently changed. We could seek around and look for examples of that kind, but we could not say that our whole system is based upon any such principle.
If we consider our own parliamentary system we must, from the word "go", admit that it does not apply to our getting into the House of Commons. No one has to obtain a majority of those eligible to vote for him, or even two-thirds of those who do vote. I suggest that the number of hon. Members who would be here if they had been elected by the majority of those eligible to vote could be counted on one hand.

Mr. Ashton: There are 17.

Mr. Heffer: All right then—three hands, or four hands. Certainly it would be a very small number. I am glad that my hon. Friend has worked out the figure. Out of the 600 or so Members, only 17 would be in this House on the basis of the proposals put before us by the Government.

Mr. Ashton: And they are all Labour Members.

Mr. Heffer: Let us consider the position in local government. This proposition does not apply there, either. If it did, with some of the low polls that we have in local government we would not have city councils or local authorities. The proposal does not apply to the election of the Leader of the Conservative Party. It does not apply to the election of the Leader of the Labour Party. In most organisations it does not apply. Only when it comes to the question of the formation of an agency shop, of a sort of semi-closed shop organisation which would give the workers some protection —we believe, in the wrong way and in a very limited way—do we have this proposal.
7.30 p.m.
Of course, it is quite clear why it is proposed—to make it more difficult for the trade unions.

Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this Chamber itself, during the whole course of the Bill and the dozens —hundreds—of votes we have had on the Bill, the Government have never had 51 per cent. of eligible voters here? Their highest vote was 309. To have the sort of eligible vote they are insisting upon in this Lords Amendment they would need to have something like 420.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that observation.

Mr. R. Carr: Would not the hon. Member agree that at least we do not have a closed shop? We do at least have two or three parties.

Mr. Ashton: It is a closed shop.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is the greatest closed shop in this country.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member must be speaking for himself.

Mr. Heffer: If hon. Members did not take the oath they would not be in the House; and hon. Members opposite should not try to kid the general public that we have not got a closed shop, for we have a type of closed shop.
The point I am making is that this proposed method of voting does not apply in any of our organisations—in our parliamentary system, in our local government system. Apparently, however, it must apply to the agency shop, and so the apathetic, the 35 per cent. or 45 per cent., who would be a minority, could have the effect of the majority and the agency shop would not come into existence.
I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. We are in this House about to take a very important decision about entering into the European Economic Community. I have not heard the Government say that before we enter the European Economic Community there must be a two-thirds majority in favour of that, or a majority, even, of those eligible to vote. I have not heard that suggestion made. I have not heard the Government say outside this House that we should get the opinion of the people of the country or of a two-thirds majority of the people of the country. Of course not. The two-thirds majority proposal does not apply —only to the trade union movement when it comes to a question of the establishment of an agency shop.
The truth is that the simple majority is the democratic, traditional method which has always been used in this country. The Government are departing from this principle in order to make it more difficult for the trade unions to get an agency shop.
In effect, our Amendments to the Lords Amendment propose the basic, democratic concept of our country in relation to voting, that there should be a simple majority of those who vote.
In this country we have never had the idea of a compulsory voting system. It has often been suggested. Many people have asked, "Why do not we have what they have in Australia so that everyone must be forced to vote? We have never accepted that principle, and I personally would be very much opposed to it, because if some people have no

wish to vote on any issue they also have the democratic right not to participate.
If the majority of workers in a factory wish to vote and decide to have an agency shop and there is an apathetic section of the workers not concerned with it one way or the other, then the majority of those who vote, on the basis of the system which is to be brought into operation, should have the majority right, as there is the majority right in elections for Parliament and local government, and in all our other organisations.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I know something of this kind of thing. Would not my hon. Friend agree that there could be shops which are now closed shops in which a very large number of very keen trade unionists would refuse to vote on an agency shop issue as a protest against losing the closed shop?

Mr. Heffer: Yes. What my right hon. Friend is saying is absolutely true. There would be so much opposition to the whole concept of an agency shop that a situation could well arise in which workers would say, "We will not participate in the ballot" and have nothing to do with it, and we could find that they could lose even the opportunity of having an agency shop.
The proposals of the Government are designed to help the interests of the employers and that is why these proposals have been brought in. On the basis of the Government's proposals an employer could exercise a considerable influence in one way or another on certain sections of the workers not to participate in such an election. We were not born yesterday; we have all been involved in industrial life and we have seen the subtle and the not so subtle means used by employers in industry to influence certain sections of the workers. An hon. Member opposite says that it works both ways. My experience has always been that the workers in industry who fight an organisattion, a trade union, do it by standing up for their rights, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances and under immense pressure from hostile employers. Therefore, the situation is not equal as between workers on the one side and employers on the other.
We believe that the concept in the Government's proposal is totally wrong


and we believe our Amendments to be right and necessary.
It could be construed from our proposing our Amendments to the Lords Amendment that we are accepting the idea of the agency sthop. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the reason we propose our Amendments at this stage is that, although we do not like the agency shop, although we are totally opposed to the whole idea of it, at least we want to try, since it is the only thing we can do at this stage, and since this Government proposal is being forced on us, to see that there is some element of democracy in it. That is why we make our proposal at this time, but I wish to stress that we are against the whole concept of the agency shop and that we think it is an alien concept which has no place in British industrial relations.
The point was made earlier by one of my hon. Friends: why not leave it to the unions and the employers? Why not leave it to the unions and the employers? It reminds me of the situation which has developed now in the United States of America. In the United States the agency shop system, or something similar to it, exists, and there they have found that, despite the years of operation of the Taft-Hartley Act, it still does not stop disputes, it still does not stop industrial action, it still does not stop all forms of activity on the part of the workers. We now find that various people, including Landrum-Griffin, are proposing further changes in the law which are very much against encouraging workers to organise themselves.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been announced on the radio today that the United States of America is facing its biggest industrial eruption for 20 years?

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reminded me of this. In the last few days since I have been on the Bill I have not had time to hear the radio.
We believe that the proposals we have put forward in the Amendments are sound, serious, good proposals in the sense that they make the best of a bad job. We ask that the normal democratic voting procedure which has been well tried

and accepted by the overwhelming mass of people in our local government system and in our parliamentary system should be applied to the ballot procedure for the agency shop.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend's case is a good one. Where does this proposal for a two-thirds' majority come from? It does not come from the British Constitution. If this procedure were operative in our parliamentary and local government systems we should have neither a Parliament nor local authorities. An abstention in a sense is a positive vote, but an abstention in the terms of the Bill is a vote against the coming into operation of an agency shop.
We discussed this subject briefly, not on the agency shop proposals but on other Amendments, and it has been more fully discussed in the other place, where Labour Peers put down an Amendment that the majority should be 55 per cent. This is in line with the decision taken by the National Union of Mineworkers when it altered its ballot procedure from a two-thirds' to a 55 per cent. majority. That decision was democratically taken by the union.
In the other place the Government would not accept 55 per cent. When we discussed this obliquely in the House the proposal then was that there should be a majority of those eligible to vote, but this was ruled out because included in those eligible to vote were all the employees of a firm, including management. This point was met in the other place by substituting a two-thirds majority. I do not know where the two-thirds majority came from, there is no constitutional basis for it. I remember the famous remark of Winston Churchill that "one is enough". and many results have been decided on that basis. Had the procedures in the Bill applied, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and many other hon. Members would not have been in the House of Commons. The Minister should tell us why a simple majority is not sufficient, as it is elsewhere.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman said that the National Union of Mine-workers democratically arrived at a decision that the majority should be 55 per cent., yet I assume, contrary to what he considers to be a democratic decision,


that it would require a majority of two-thirds of those voting to approve the change to 55 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman say why the union decided on 55 per cent., which is entirely contrary to the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)?

Mr. Orme: No, it is not contrary. The rule was made by the rules revision committee, which is the annual conference of the union. The decision was taken following a national ballot which resulted in a clear majority but not a two-thirds' majority. After seeing how its wage claim had been dealt with by the Government, the union decided to revert to a more democratic form of balloting. The N.U.M. is a very democratic organisation and it was thought that this rule would never be operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) could perhaps tell me what was the majority achieved in the national ballot on that occasion. I think that it was about 57 per cent. of all miners voting.

Mr. Adam Butler: Representing as I do a mining constituency, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure was 57 per cent.

Mr. Orme: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the figure.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am prepared to disappoint the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), with his knowledge of the mining industry. In fact, the figure was 55·5 per cent.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has experience and knowledge of this matter, so that, although I am sorry for the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), I shall have to take my hon. Friend's word for it.
The bias of the Government against trade unions comes out in these agency shop proposals. The Government are making it as difficult as possible for a union to achieve the necessary majority to set up an agency shop. A trade union shop does not become a 100 per cent. shop overnight. It takes many years to build up the organisation and to gain the confidence of workers within the factory.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has great experience.

Will he say roughly what percentage membership one would normally expect before being strong enough to claim not recognition but a closed shop situation in practice now?

Mr. Orme: That is a very difficult question to answer. It is a problem of human relations, and one employer might be more easily persuaded by a certain percentage than another employer. I have known an employer to recognise a strong trade union group within the factory and to co-operate with it. I served 15 years on the Manchester district committee, and I have known instances where the employer would not co-operate although the firm was 80 or 90 per cent. organised. There is the case of the Roberts Arundel strike, and the American-owned firm in Stockport, where for nine months the firm was 100 per cent. organised but the employers would not recognise the union.

Mr. Carr: Under this Bill the union would have been able to get recognition.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that, but I am not sure that would operate.

Mr. Ashton: Is not the Secretary of State confusing the situation in thinking that a closed shop means one union to that shop? It does not. It means one union to the job. It is possible to have five unions in a factory and still have a closed shop, and not one union will have 55 per cent. of the vote. A closed union will operate for that shop. That is the distinction in regard to the Roberts Arundel case.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is making the issue more complicated.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is complicating an already complicated matter. The more we go into these agency shop proposals, the more trouble we shall have. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have spent a great part of their lives trying to iron out industrial problems and seeking to organise workers and get employers to negotiate. They have not looked for strikes, but have been forced into them. The agency shop situation will set one union against


another which is a different situation from having a sole bargaining agent. This proposal will involve recognition and the taking of ballots when an employer is being difficult about setting up an agency shop.
The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating resistance on this matter. He was not prepared on the previous set of Amendments to say whether these proposals would come into operation. These are the difficulties with which we shall be faced. In a large well-organised firm such as that in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) was convenor for a number of years, Metropolitan Vickers— which is now General Electric and English Electric—there were some 39 confederated unions. All that work had to be co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend. It involved matters of organisation, membership, poaching of members, and problems involving different skills and trades.
All that was done in negotiation between employer and employees. The management of Metropolitan Vickers set a very high standard. It set up a works committee comprised solely of trade unionists, and that committee became extremely powerful. The works convenor in that factory was probably on a parallel with the general works manager. He was an important man. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton was at one time the works convenor, as was the previous secretary of my own union, and Hugh Scanlon was the convenor for a number of years.
The aim of those convenors was not to start strikes. It was to stop them and to start proper negotiations. If the Government try to put on top of that system all the paraphernalia of the agency shop, and if we have to consider the nonsense of the voting figures which may involve 55 or 66 per cent., there are bound to be difficulties. I am opposed to the proposals which were accepted in the other place. I regard the figure of 66 per cent. as too high. I am opposed to the conception in any case, and it does not improve the situation to move to a figure of two-thirds.
We are seeking to test whether the Minister is working on an anti-union or

pro-union basis. If he is on the side of the unions, let him show his good faith by accepting our Amendment. I doubt whether he will. I hope that at least he will endeavour to give us an answer on this matter.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is on a serious point, but did not answer the question. We got bogged down on the majority which took the decision to change the voting rule. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a strong plea, but it was a repeat of what was said in Committee when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made the same point. The hon. Member for Salford, West thought only four hon. Members would be returned to the House under this procedure. He made the strong plea that the basic democratic right should never be infringed and that one vote was enough—quoting the words of Disraeli.

Mr. Orme: Winston Churchill.

Mr. King: Disraeli started it and Churchill followed it up. The hon. Member for Salford, West is following a fine tradition.
The hon. Member made the interesting observation in his speech, that for some reason the National Union of Mine-workers had decided that in some industrial situations 55 per cent. was more appropriate. The House is entitled to know why since this is a relevant matter. One hon. Member opposite said that in no circumstances should one depart from a figure of 51 per cent. in the voting. Now we have an instance where a union has decided that that figure is not appropriate to its situation and has adopted a figure of 55 per cent.

Mr. Orme: As somebody who is not directly concerned with the National Union of Mineworkers, which took this decision democratically, I must say that I disagree with it. I think the simple majority should apply to all union rules. The union has taken that decision, but I am openly criticising it. I understand that in a choice between 51 and 55 per cent., 55 per cent. was decided upon after a vote. I believe that the simple majority should operate in that union as in every other.

Mr. King: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties because the N.U.M. is not his union, and it is unfair to expect him to justify that decision. Presumably when the vote was taken the two arguments were put forward as to which alternative should be followed, and presumably the members voted on those alternatives. Is it not possible for some hon. Member to inform the House what arguments were put forward on the proposition that it should be 55 per cent. which persuaded the majority of members of the N.U.M. that that was the right course to adopt?

Mr. Loughlin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I reverse the argument—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear what is happening. Has the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) given way or has he finished?

Mr. King: I had finished, but I am willing to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do both. Mr. Ashton.

Mr. Ashton: rose—

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been the custom for the last 11 years in which I have been in the House that if when one hon. Member is speaking another hon. Member says to him "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down … ", provided there is no objection by the Member concerned that is a legitimate intervention. Since I prefaced my remarks with the words, "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down", I cannot see why you should rule me out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. I was trying to clear it up. I was asking the hon. Member for Bridgwater which course he was taking. If he had said that he was giving way, then the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) would have had a right to speak. But as the hon. Member told me that he had sat down, I decided to call the next speaker.

Mr. King: Further to that point of order. I am in a slightly difficult position. I had already virtually sat down,

but I am willing to give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It cannot be done like that now. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must accept the situation. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said that he had sat down. However, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West need not worry. I shall call him.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: Before the points of order arose, I thought that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) had become a little confused about the two-thirds majority and the decision reached by the N.U.M. All trade unions have the tradition that a two-thirds majority is necessary to change the existing rules. That is a legitimate safeguard. The same happens at the Labour Party conference, and, for all I know, at the Conservative Party conference as well. The simple reason for it is that chaos would result if rules were changed every six months on a simple majority verdict.
I am not a member of the N.U.M., but I represent a mining constituency. I understand the difficulties of the N.U.M. when it comes to conducting ballots at pit heads, for example, and it may be that the union's delegates decided on 55 per cent. because of those difficulties.
However, that is by the way. I was anxious to make two points. The first is that the drafting of the Amendment has not been done very well, like the drafting of the Bill itself from the very beginning. The Secretary of State talks about those eligible to vote. I should have preferred him to have talked about those eligible to join the union. The two are vastly different. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the words should be amended to read
… those eligible to join the union".
unless we are to take it that "eligible vote" means that.
Let us consider the case of two competing unions. One, the Transport and General Workers Union, takes literally anyone into membership. Its rules provide for it. There are hon. Members of this House who are journalists and who, as a result, are members of that union. If the Transport and General Workers Union were trying to establish


itself in any place of work, quite legitimately, it could take in 100 per cent. of the workers. It could say that 100 per cent. of the workers were eligible to join the union and, therefore, eligible to vote.

Mr. R. Carr: "Eligible to vote" means those in the bargaining unit as agreed voluntarily or, if not voluntarily, by the C.I.R.

Mr. Ashton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, though I am not sure that that answers the point. The Transport and General Workers Union would be eligible to take everyone into its bargaining unit from the manager down to the office cleaner. Its rules accept entrants at all levels.
Then let us consider another union, perhaps an engineering union. By virtue of these rules, it does not admit office cleaners. Clause 5 refers to the right
… to be a member of such trade union as he may choose".
An office cleaner might say that he wished to be a member of the engineering union. It may be that there is no section in the rule book of the union which caters for that kind of membership. I do not know whether such a case would have to go to the C.I.R.
If it means that the rule book has to be changed before registration can be made in order to accept any member, again there is a dispute. But certainly "eligible to vote" and "eligible to belong" to that union can be interpreted in the courts as being two different things. "Eligible to vote" is an extremely loose, vague phrase which ought to be defined more accurately. In my view, anyone who is eligible to take part in a vote should have the necessary qualifications to do the job involved.
Earlier, the Solicitor-General spoke about how big the umbrella was to be which would cover the people for whom a union wanted to negotiate as sole bargaining agent. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, if the union only wanted to act as sole bargaining agent for a few workers, that would be the size of the umbrella. However, the management might say that it should cover everyone and, therefore, that everyone should come in.
There is also some confusion on the benches opposite as to the meaning of

a closed shop. A closed shop is not a system where everyone in a factory belongs to the same union or must have a union card before he can get a job. Before I came to this House, I worked in a factory which was big enough to hold two "Queen Marys". There were dozens of trade unions and many thousands of workers. All the unions operated a closed shop in that factory.
Occasionally, there are power struggles. Last week, for example, A.S.T.M.S. said that it intended to train and recruit bank employees. The National Union of Bank Employers said that it would not allow it. In such a case, there will be ballots to decide whether that is to be the position at an individual bank, at all branches of National Westminster throughout the country, for example, and so on. This is the sort of area into which we are moving.

Mr. Moyle: Although we are debating a fairly narrow point, we are touching some of the fundamental issues which divide the two sides of the House. I thought that it was very significant when the Secretary of State interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to ask what percentage of the work force should be in the union before my hon. Friend would advocate a closed shop. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking a mechanical, rigid rule of law, and it was quite easy to see that my hon. Friend realised that a decision about a closed shop had a lot of subjective and psychological factors which varied from plant to plant, union to union, and place to place.
There could be a very substantial union membership in a plant or factory, yet the conclusion might be reached that an agency shop or closed shop was quite inappropriate. On the other hand, in the mining industry, once there is a union going, the pressures for an agency shop or closed shop must be tremendous, because of the necessity to introduce discipline for safety reasons.
One great divide between the two sides of the House concerns the concept of simplicity. All great ideas are simple. When one is dealing with large bodies of people, as, inevitably, one is in industrial relations, the simpler the idea is, the greater it is. That is why this Bill


will never become a great Act. Nothing in it is simple.
We must sympathise with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are trying to apply an instrument in the form of a rule of law to industrial relations. It is completely inadequate for the job that they give it. What they are doing is illustrated by the history of the provision that we are discussing. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have the idea that an agency shop should be introduced on the basis of a majority of those eligible to vote voting in favour of it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) explained, we have run our national life on a totally different principle. It is that anyone who is interested enough to vote in a situation should vote, and that the majority should carry the day. It is a simple idea. It has carried forward the country, just as it has carried forward the national life of the great American republic and most of the British dominions. I have in mind Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on. When this is pointed out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of trying to simplify the situation, they realise that they have made an error in trying to apply a law which will cover all the contingencies which may occur, so what they do in another place is to introduce a more complex provision than the original one. This is typical of the reactions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen under pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House pointing out the errors of their ways and the difficulties of applying law to an industrial situation. They do not say, "Let us simplify the law if we must have it"; they say, "Let us introduce a more complex law than the one before."
They have now come up with either a majority of those eligible to vote or not less than two-thirds of those who voted, if they are in favour of an agency shop, will get it. This increases the complexity of the situation. By increasing the complexity and obscuring the aim of the legislation, they will tempt people to disregard it and make the Act more difficult to apply.
I think that my hon. Friends have hit on the solution. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were true to their beliefs, they would hit on the same solution.

No doubt they are familiar with Mr. Basil and Mr. Sebastian de Ferranti. One of them used to sit on the benches opposite. In the old days, when Ferranti was still Ferranti, it was headed by the father of those two gentlemen. He was invited to an industrial seminar to give his views on how an industrial firm should be run. After he had given his address, one young sycophantic student got up and asked: "Tells me, Sir, from your great experience, what is the key to industrial leadership and success?" Mr. Ferranti replied:"I expect you want me to tell you that it is due to industrial skill and to personality. But if, as I am, you are short, ugly, foreign and diffident, you must have 51 per cent. of the equity." If that is so, I recommend that piece of capitalist philosophy to right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite and hope that they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Loughlin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for making it absolutely clear that, whatever arguments we advance about these Amendments, we are positively opposed to the agency shop. It is essential not only that we get that on the record but that we get it across to the community at large in the loundest, clearest possible voice.

Mr. Ashton: The newspapers will not print it.

Mr. Loughlin: If the newspapers will not print it, we can at least tell our constituents in our speeches.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) the Secretary of State intervened and raised the question of the percentage that is normally required in a factory to get a closed shop. I will tell him. It depends entirely on the circumstances obtaining in the factory.
8.15 p.m.
I will illustrate this from my own experience. I worked in a factory employing about 1,250 people of whom about 600, less than 50 per cent., were in the union and wanted a closed shop. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why It was because, over a period, we had secured substantial improvements in the general conditions of labour, safety standards and wage rates of the people in that factory. Many of the workers were


eager to join the union, but they resented those who were prepared to take all the advantages but would not pay a halfpenny towards the maintenance of the union organisation. We paid the shop stewards out of the branch funds for doing a great deal of the work in getting improved labour conditions in that factory.
We considered the situation. We decided that we would get them all in because, if they were getting the benefits, they were entitled to face their responsibilities. This applies in the social area. People living in my community get the advantage of lighting, sewerage, roads, and all the things which arise out of the rate fund. We do not say to people, "You have a right to all the benefits, but you do not need to pay rates". We say, "If you do not pay your rates we shall take you to court and distrain on your property, if need be".
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that when we talk about industry we are talking about a microcosm of society. It is like being outside the factory. I agree that there is a totalitarian aspect in many factories, but it is precisely the same. It is a society under a different umbrella.
Reverting to my illustration, we decided that those who got the benefit should face their responsibilities. What did we do? The answer to that question is the short answer to the right hon. Gentleman. We considered which two departments were of so much significance to the factory that if we stopped them the whole factory would stop. By coincidence, the two departments concerned were almost 100 per cent. trade union shops. [Interruption.] I am not being facetious. I want my hon. Friends to be absolutely serious about this. The two departments concerned were just about 100 per cent. trade union shops. So we said to the lads in those departments that we wanted a closed shop and we told the employer that if we did not get a closed shop the two departments would come out. If the two departments had come out the factory could not have gone on.
I use this as an illustration. I believe that at that time we were quite justified. On the basis of the three years' work which we had done we could have justified it anywhere. The people we were

asking to face their responsibilities had had the maximum benefits that they could possibly expect from trade union organisation.

Mr. R. Carr: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to living in a community and paying the rates. That is what we are recognising in the Bill. At the moment there are free riders who pay nothing. When the Bill is on the Statute Book the free rider will not be allowed. He may not be compelled to submit to the discipline of the union, but he can be compelled to pay his rates so that he will not get the benefits for nothing.

Mr. Loughlin: But only in certain circumstances. If that is to apply throughout the whole of industry, I concede that point.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman has told us a very interesting story. Does he consider that his action was democratic? If so, I wonder whether his hon. Friends who have been saying that 51 per cent. is democratic agree with the use of blackmail to bring this democracy into play.

Mr. Loughlin: I take the point, but we are debating a Bill which will apply to industry. Despite all the high-falutin' terms that we use, we are very much realists at heart. I think that most of us could argue a case for the ideal, but what we are faced with is arguing a case for the human being, and as far as I know there are no ideal human beings, except my wife.
I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) attempted to engage my hon. Friends in an argument about the miners' decision being based on 55 per cent. I agree that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were very much to the point, but may I ask him to reverse the argument for a moment? Let us assume that Mr. Speaker would accept from me a manuscript Amendment to alter 51 per cent. to 55 per cent. Would that satisfy the hon. Gentleman? In view of his criticism of the miners, would he accept that 55 per cent. was the right figure, and would he come into the Division Lobby with us?

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that in no sense did I endorse 55 per cent. I was trying to probe


it because it seemed to contradict what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said. Since he spoke every speech from the other side of the House has seemed to confuse the issue so clearly set out by the hon. Member for Walton, even though one did not agree with what he said.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that and I, too, am confused. I become confused when I look at the Bill and when I try to consider the Amendments which have been suggested by the other place. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's being confused. The hon. Gentleman's case is that we cannot argue in favour of 51 per cent.—which is the subject of the Amendment—as against two-thirds because one of our organisations used the figure of 55 per cent.

Mr. Tom King: Answer the question.

Mr. Loughlin: I know that the hon. Gentleman asked a question, but he was using the old technique which we always use in the House. If he uses the old technique I am entitled to reverse the position and ask him to establish quite clearly what is at the back of his mind. I ask him to tell us whether, if we were able to change the figure to 55 per cent., he would support us. Quite frankly, I know that he would not.
I now propose to deal with a matter about which the Secretary of State is possibly sick and tired of hearing, but it is a matter which must cause him some concern. I am not being funny when I say that. Anyone who considers the phrase "eligible to vote" must, if he has a reasonable attitude to things, become concerned. If we talk about those eligible to vote, we make no provision at all for those who do not vote. Let us consider that situation in a parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman may look at me in a hang-dog fashion, but is it not true that he was voted to this House by a percentage which was considerably lower than the percentage of those eligible to vote?

Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry if I have a hang-dog look, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is only because we have been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they want to press on and debate urgent things, and yet if we have heard the argument now being advanced by the

hon. Gentleman once, and answered it once, we have heard it and answered it at least one hundred times since last January.

Mr. Heffer: I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that we regard this as a matter of great principle, importance and urgency, and that if hon. Members on this side of the House wish to emphasise the point there will be no objection from us.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, and I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton for his. I think it is accepted in the House that I could not care two hoots whether we want to get on or do not want to get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene again?

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman has now stated what has been obvious since yesterday, namely, that the Opposition want to delay and not to get on with the business. All this talk about wanting more time for debate is bogus.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know whether it is in order for an hon. Member to indulge in gratuitous insults. If ever there was a gratuitous insult it was that made by the Secretary of State a moment ago. I shall await your Ruling on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Hon. Members may insult each other as much as they like, so long as they do it in a parliamentary manner. Nothing that I have heard so far has been un-parliamentary.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I can now indulge in insulting the Secretary of State. I think that my contributions to the debate yesterday demonstrate quite clearly that I have not attempted to make Second Reading speeches. I have dealt with the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman can read HANSARD to confirm that if he wants to. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he can intellectually justify the inclusion of "eligible to vote" as distinct from "those voting". This is the substance of the argument. It is not a question of which department they belong to or whether they are in one craft as against another.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated assent.

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that after 11 years I have found one hon. Member opposite who agrees with me. The phrase "eligible to vote" is completely undemocratic and unfair.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Prescott: In reply to the Secretary of State's reiterated assertion that we on this side are wasting time instead of debating the issues which we regard as important, I must point out to him that the principle involved here is one of the most important in this legislation. We are sometimes encouraged to reiterate our points because, no matter how many times we make a point, the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us a proper answer. If we are lucky to get an answer. Last night I could not even get an answer.
In view of an earlier exchange, I want to put it on record that the conversation which I was reputed to have had with the Solicitor-General about an Amendment occurred only after the Division was called. I was trying to get into HANSARD a record of the Government's position affecting my trade union.
We are debating the essential principle —that of the majority will—involved in democracy, whether it be expressed as a majority of one—or 51 per cent.—or, as is the Government's interpretation of democracy, 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote, which latter interpretation we fiercely attack. In the discussion on a later Amendment we shall deal with the Government's proposal that it should be 66⅔ per cent. of those voting or a majority of those eligible to vote.
I am one of the 17 Members referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) who are here with a majority of 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. I plead both for a principle which I believe to be right and also for my colleagues to be represented in the House on the principle of the majority of those voting in an election.
The real issue is whether the two-thirds majority proposed in a later Amendment, though we believe the 51

per cent. to the essential point, is a concession. We are told that the Bill is designed to strengthen the trade union movement. The burning question is whether the proposal will make it more difficult for trade unionism to develop. I believe, contrary to the Government's contention, that the Bill is designed solely to cripple the trade union movement.
The principle embodied in the Bill is that of 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. The proposed change is just a liberal figleaf. The test is whether it will be more difficult for trade unionism to function. A good analogy is that, if it is necessary to swim across a river which is two miles wide, it is immaterial whether the person so challenged has the ability to swim two-thirds of the way across or 75 per cent. of the way across. The real challenge is to get from A to B, namely, from one side of the river to the other. In this case, the test is whether it will be possible for growth to occur in trade unionism.
Basing myself upon that criterion, I shall spend the next few minutes considering the matter against the background of my experience. I do not apologise for again referring to my experience in shipping. Most hon. Members have referred to their experience. My industry has a number of peculiar aspects about it that make it very different from other industries.
We are concerned with a ballot for an agency shop. How many of those taking part in the election will determine whether the agency shop will be adopted at their place of work? We are debating the issue here within the context of the Bill as it is at present, and we on this side of the House totally reject the concept of the Bill. However, taking the Bill as it is, I should like to pose some problems which will make it extremely difficult to conduct ballots. There are many problems in the shipping industry which will make it extremely difficult for the employees to vote because of the difficulty of getting ballot papers to them. It will be appreciated that mobility of labour in my industry is very great. Men are employed in ships which are situated all over the world and it is difficult for


those men to receive mail. I am assuming that if a ballot is conducted, the ballot papers may be sent by mail. One cannot assume that the postmen will be paid extra money for nipping round the world delivering ballot papers. Many of our ships have to go to inaccessible places where there are no facilities for the delivery of mail. Some ships are away for anything from 12 months to over two years.
Then there are problems of different companies. Seamen are not mobile like non-seagoing people, just from factory to factory; a seaman can be mobile from one ship to another ship in the same company, or from one company to another company, and from one part of the world to another part of the world. His place of residence can change constantly from week to week, month to month and year to year. That makes it extremely difficult to conduct a ballot among those men.
In considering the application of the agency shop, men may have left the company or the ship during the time when the ballot takes place and may be in another ship. New men will have come in and decided whether there shall be an agency shop in that company, while the people who should have taken part in the ballot will have moved on to another company. The turnover of labour in that industry is extremely high. The Tavistock Institute has done a survey and has found that over 25 per cent. of those who enter the shipping industry leave within a period of five years. This leads to ever-increasing problems in conducting a ballot.
There is the question of addresses. We have ballots within our own union and the addresses change constantly so that it is difficult to keep regular contact with the men. Men spend varying periods of time ashore. It has been found that 20 per cent. of seamen spend 50 per cent. of their time on shore, on leave, away from their ships so that they would be out of touch with the ballot to determine the essential principle of the application of an agency shop. This applies to different types of ships, those engaged in the home trade and foreign-going ships. I am seeking to show to the House how difficult it is in these circumstances to conduct ballots.
My union holds executive council elections every two years. Because of the difficulties to which I have referred, we hold the ballot open for over three months. On the last occasion it was open for four months. During that time the ballot and elections are run by the Electoral Reform Society, an independent body. There are more than 9,000 claims for votes from 54,000 seamen, representing about 18 per cent. of the membership claiming the right to vote. Indeed, only 5·7 per cent. of forms were returned in 16 weeks while the ballot was open in 1967, and that percentage has been as low as 4·8.
In other words, there is, first, the difficulty of holding ballots. This is where it is relevant to consider the need to reach a certain percentage in the level of voting, be it 51 or 66. Then there is the difficulty of those who do not vote and the fact that a vote not cast is a vote against. The Government must have been aware of this. Actually, this very fact fits in with the philosophy of the Bill. However, they obviously found it difficult to overcome it in the Measure, and have come forward with this so-called liberalising step. Now we are told, "We had better make it two-thirds", but in reality this is no concession.
While the principle of abstention in voting may not now mean a vote against, as it did under the previous eligibility arrangement, one must bear in mind the way in which people vote. For example, why do fewer people vote at local than at general elections? The answer is simply that they take a different attitude to the former. Considering the record of the Conservatives in the last year or so, I have no doubt that the majority of people wish that they had exercised their vote differently at the last General Election.
Attitudes vary and people vote according to what they consider to be the importance of the occasion. Some people feel extremely strongly about the need for trade union representation, and they can always be relied on to vote in union matters. Others feel just as strongly in their hearts, but are not bothered to vote or take part in union affairs. This applies to most human institutions and is typical of our political history.
In other words, because the majority do not vote that does not mean that they are not in favour of what they might have voted for. It is just that they prefer to leave it to the minority to take the decision. The apathetic majority in trade unionism are always glad to accept the concessions and improvements secured by the minority. We in the trade union movement have always been aware of those against trade unionism, and that is why we have conscience clauses.
One frequently finds that the people who want better conditions are either not prepared to fight for them or leave it to the minority to do the fighting. Alternatively, many people who are interested in union affairs channel their energies into other activities, like the boy scouts and hobbies.

Mr. Skinner: But not yachting.

Mr. Prescott: Certainly not. They cannot afford that. Only a Tory Prime Minister can indulge in such expensive hobbies.
When it is necessary to obtain a high vote, one is up against all sorts of difficulties. If a total vote of 66 per cent. must be obtained, as in this case, there will be equal difficulties because of the great number of people who will say, "I cannot be bothered".
I have often heard it said that because so few people attend union branch meetings, the power of the trade union movement is being moved to the factory floor. That is true to an extent, but it is wrong to assume that because people do not attend union meetings they are not interested in union affairs. As soon as there is an important issue, such as a strike, an overtime cut, a threat of redundancy or what seems to be an unnecessary sacking, they turn up in strength. Then the apathetic majority, who are not usually concerned to participate in and vote on trade union matters, appreciate the protection they get from the trade union movement.
This is the serious point of disagreement between the two sides of the House on this issue. We are discussing a fundamental principle which it seems hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot grasp. I shall, therefore, have much pleasure in opposing the Government on this matter.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall not keep the House long, but it is worth reiterating one or two points. After the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it does not need to be said that all of us on this side are against the agency shop and we shall always be against it. Somewhere along the line, however, we must accept that we have to get the best possible deal that we can out of the agency shop.
The same thing happened in the other place. In Committee in the House of Lords, the whole of the Labour Opposition were against the agency shop principle. On Report, they decided to see what kind of deal they could get out of it in the way of voting. The official Labour Amendment in the other place was for a simple majority. The official line of the Labour Party throughout the Bill has been that a simple majority should suffice. In the other place, a manuscript Amendment was moved at the same time by one of my noble friends from the mining industry, Lord Blyton. He anticipated the miners' conference by one day by putting down a manuscript Amendment to provide for 55 per cent. We all recognised the difficulty of the Front Bench. Its occupants wanted to get off the hook from the situation into which they had got themselves on the Bill.
In the other place, to get the best deal that we could, we were opening windows and doors and hoping that the Government would jump through one of them to give us a better deal than they have done. Unfortunately, they failed to do so. They failed to take the options. I do not think that the Government Front Bench will take them tonight. What we on this side must do, and keep on doing, is to try to hammer home that this is a principle with us and a principle which each and every one of us will continue to reiterate. We can only be happy that when the day comes, we shall strike it from the record altogether.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member has said that this is a principle. As we know that he speaks with great authority for the mining industry, will he tell us what is the principle? Is it 51 per cent. or is it 55 per cent.?

Mr. Concannon: The official Labour Party principle, both here and in the House of Lords, is a simple majority. I shall make my peace with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because it was his area which submitted the amendment to the miners' conference for a simple majority instead of 66⅔ per cent. My area decided to go for 55 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend's area is more conservative.

Mr. Concannon: No, it is not. I am in favour of a simple majority, but for some reason the miners' conference went for 55 per cent. It must have thought that it was a big enough jump from 66⅔ per cent. to 55 per cent. I have no doubt that this matter will come up again and that in the near future it will become a simple majority.
I ask the Minister seriously to consider the precedent he is setting and whether he cannot meet our proposal. If he will not accept 55 per cent.—and I cannot see him accepting even a simple majority tonight—that does not mean that we shall not keep pressing this. The only thing we can say to the trade union movement from these benches is let us wait until the next election, when we promise that we shall wipe off the Bill and everything that goes with it.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in a speech which was as trenchant as it was witty and literary, suggested that the Bill would not be a lawyer's paradise. With some feeling, I agree with him, but if it is a paradise, then it is a paradise lost. He persuasively showed us that it gets into the realms of fantasy in one or another. It would be more accurate to describe the Bill as a lawyer's nightmare. I believe that I can prove this by one illustration.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I do not know whether he has had legal training, but he has a good eye for a legal flaw. He put his finger on a definite ambiguity and the difficulty which underlies the whole of this part of the Bill— the part dealing with eligibility to vote. It is not a simple matter, as he rightly appreciated. There is some law on the matter. Lord Chelmsford, in Baker v.

Lee in 1860—House of Lords cases— dealt with the question of the meaning of the word "eligible". He pointed out that it is ambiguous. He said that it can mean "legally qualified"—he was thinking of the context of that case—and that it can be qualified in law—that is, qualified according to the requirements of the law—or it can mean "fit to be chosen". These are two different meanings and we do not know which of them is intended in the Bill.
In the case of Morris v. Winter in 1930, before the King's Bench, the question of eligibility was distinguished from the question of entitlement to remission. Eligibility to remission is one thing; entitlement to remission is quite another. I hope that the Solicitor-General will return to the Chamber shortly, because I want to say something about him and I prefer not to say it in his absence.
I have only chosen these two cases as an illustration, but many more could be quoted. However, I do not want to take up much time because we want to focus our points as shortly as we can. I end the point by stressing that, even in terms of the Representation of the People Acts, which are matters that we here are much concerned with, the question of eligibility to vote in a general election is an entirely different matter from entitlement to vote. A person is eligible to vote at the age of 18 but he is entitled to vote only if he takes the steps to get himself on the register. The meaning of the phrase is so vague and meaningless that one can only wonder how it got into the Bill.
Unfortunately, the Solicitor-General is still not here, but I want to quote what he said in an address to the American Bar Association on 15th July. The report in The Guardlan said that he had told the meeting that the Bill would need
… detailed change and improvement …
in future years. That is the understatement of the year. We are being asked to push this final stage of the Bill through in only five days of debate. Yet that is what has been said by one of its principal creators. Perhaps I am unfair to use that quotation, particularly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, but he will be as aware as I am that it is a principle of law that a confession can be used against the accused person whereas a statement in his favour cannot


be used in his favour. I quote that against the hon. and learned Gentleman and on that happy note I conclude.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has one advantage or disadvantage over me—he is a lawyer and I am not. He and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) are making heavy weather about the question of the eligibility to vote. First, this is something which the parties, if they can agree about it, are free to agree about it for the area of the pLant or works or establishment in which they wish to consider the question of the bargaining agent and who shall be entitled to vote. If they cannot agree, they then go to the C.I.R. which will make recommendations.
We are constantly accused of having imported United States law. We have probably gone nearest to that, although still very far from it, in having to some extent taken hold of the concept of the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent and the possibility, although not so freely or in the same circumstances in this country as in North America, of determining such questions by means of an election. Anybody who has fairly looked at the practice in the United States would have to say, whatever he might say about the rights and wrongs of the system across the Atlantic, that on the whole there had been no great trouble via the National Labour Relations Board, which in this respect is the nearest equivalent, although not a very exact equivalent, of the C.I.R. in this respect. There has been no difficulty about holding elections of this kind, about deciding constituency boundaries, as we would call them in Parliamentary terms, or those entitled to vote.
I do not believe that in practice there will be any more difficulty in this country than there has been there. First, it would be up to the parties to agree voluntarily, and if they could not, the C.I.R. would be the body which would say what it considered to be right.
I intended to deal with a number of issues raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Unfortunately, he is not here. I do not complain and I am not criticising him for that, for he has been one of the

most regular attenders of our debates. We are rather playing Cox and Box with each other. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General hoped to put right an omission of last night by replying to the hon. Gentleman on an Amendment earlier this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman was not here then and now the same thing has happened again.
There has been much emotion and some substance. I do not wish to denigrate the performance of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but the emotion which expressed most clearly the strength of feeling came in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He said that the Amendment clearly showed the antitrade union bias implicit in the Bill.
That is the greatest nonsense. In this context, the hon. Gentleman convicted himself out of his own mouth. He mentioned two companies, one good and one bad. The good was Metropolitan-Vickers. He said that all this system had grown up there voluntarily. Good! Excellent! There is nothing in the Bill which will stop that from happening in future, or going on as it already exists. The Bill will not make it more difficult. It will not detract in any way from a voluntary development with good will, or from a vountarily established position.
The bad company was Roberts Arundel, where all voluntary efforts had failed. In spite of the strength of the union membership, the union could not get recognition, let alone a closed shop. That bad example will be corrected once the Bill is on the Statute Book. That is a fact and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny it. The voluntary system worked in the example of the good company and will continue to work when the Bill is passed, but the voluntary system, unaided by and without the proper framework of industrial relations law, proved itself unable to cope with the bad case of Roberts Arundel. If ever there was a clear example of the need for a law of the sort that we are talking about it is that one.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Orme: It is difficult. There is a philosophical gap between us which is wide and deep and which has been there throughout our debates. My contention


is that these matters cannot be resolved by law. In the bad case industrial action had to be taken. It was a long and protracted business but it was successful. Recognition was obtained. It was a difficult case. This Bill would not have put it right. Metropolitan-Vickers was the good example with its agency shop provisions but legislation such as this may introduce problems into a factory.

Mr. Carr: As the hon. Member says, there is a deep philosophical difference between us but what I cannot understand is why he positively prefers to have the Roberts Arundel type case settled after enormous, wasteful, damaging and destructive loss of time by industrial war fare rather than through machinery which could have settled it without industrial warfare, by peaceful process under the law, much sooner and with much less damage to the workers, the company, the customers and suppliers. I cannot under stand why industrial warfare is preferable to a peaceful mechanism for obtaining the rights which we all agree about—

Mr. Ashton: This is why I say the United Nations can settle Vietnam.

Mr. Carr: We do not pretend that this Bill will remove all warfare from industry. I do not believe that this is possible allowing for human nature, although we may hope to improve. Surely it is sensible and good to introduce machinery which will enable more cases to be settled without warfare than is the case at present. In the majority of cases the machinery will not be used, but there will be an important minority of cases which at the moment have to remain unresolved or which must be resolved by industrial warfare. We believe that in a civilised society it is more sensible to have this machinery and freedom and order under the law. If that breaks down warfare may still be the final result but let us try the other way first.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the agency shop system was chosen for this beneficent Bill, as he puts it, rather than the closed shop procedure? There might have been force in the argument if he was suggesting that the framework of law was to be used to help the closed shop. He is removing the right which trade unions have fought for for generations.

Mr. Carr: This is another deep problem, and here there is a more genuine philosophical division between the two sides than the one I have just dealt with. I do not feel that I could embark on that because it would be a debate about the agency shop and would be a repeat of debates initiated at an earlier stage in an outstandingly good speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden). There, the philosophy of the agency shop versus the closed shop was touched upon. If I were to embark on that again I should be going well beyond the terms of the Amendment.
Hon. Members opposite are missing one vital link in their argument. They are speaking as though the Bill does not provide for a simple majority. They quote in support of their argument the fact that we are elected to the House on straight majorities, and make decisions on straight majorities; that Winston Churchill said, "One is enough". When we are dealing—as we are in the Bill— with the basic question of recognition we say that a simple majority is enough. That is the equivalent to electing one's Government, or one's elected representative. It is the choice of the union which shall have the sole bargaining rights.

Mr. Harold Walker: But at the moment the workers in an establishment can challenge that agency.

Mr. Carr: Yes, but the decision is a simple majority decision whether to support single-agency recognition.
When we go beyond recognition, to the approval of an agency shop, it is something more than straight recognition, and we believe that it requires more than a simple majority. That has been a fundamental principle of ours from the beginning. I believe that that is not only right but is in tune with experience under the present system. That is why I interrupted the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to ask what his judgment was— based on his great experience—of the sort of membership that there had to be in an establishment before it was possible to get a closed shop.
Under the present system basic union recognition is often obtained with relatively small percentage memberships, but I believe—and I think that I am supported


by many experienced trade union leaders; I believe that this view was expressed in the debate in another place—that in normal circumstances before a union can go forward from its initial stage of recognition to the further stage of a closed shop it has to have 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. membership. In practice, before a closed shop situation can be achieved, the union concerned must have obtained considerably more than a bare majority of union members in the establishment. That does not apply in all cases, but it applies in the great majority of cases. Any experienced union leader would have difficulty in denying that in the majority of cases what I have been saying is correct.
From the beginning, our principle has been that there should be a simple majority for recognition but something more for something more, namely, the agency shop, which is the nearest to the closed shop that our philosophical reasons enable us to go.
In the original Bill we said that the something more would have to be a majority of those eligible to vote and not a majority of those voting, but strong exception was taken to this by hon. Members opposite. We understood the depth of their feelings on the matter. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I should point out that we understood the difficulties of the shipping industry. The hon. Member has expounded on many occasions the difficulties of taking a ballot in that industry. Those difficulties were among the most powerful practical arguments that finally led us to believe that we must support an Amendment providing an alternative to the "eligible-to-vote" qualification. It was because of practical arguments like those and because of the obvious emotional feelings of hon. Members opposite about eligibility to vote as the test that we supported an Amendment in another place that, as an alternative, we should have 66 per cent. of those voting.
Why 66 per cent.? I was asked. It is a matter of judgment, of course. There is no obvious yardstick. The only principle which I had in my mind was that a bare majority was needed for recognition, something more than a bare majority was needed for something further—an agency shop, which imposes extra rights and extra

obligations on both sides, and it seemed to me that 66 per cent. was a reasonable figures. In going forward to that we were genuinely going forward to meet first the practical difficulties which the hon. Member put forward about industries such as the shipping industry, and secondly the deep emotional feelings on the other side about the objectionableness of eligibility to vote as the basic test.

Mr. Prescott: I should like to offer my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman for having missed the beginning of his speech. In normal circumstances I would not have missed it, but there were unavoidable circumstances so that I did miss it, and I would apologise to him.

Mr. Carr: We have been playing box and cox with each other, but I would say to the hon. Member that the Solicitor-General was sorry not to have replied to his point last night because he was right in saying that of all the speeches the hon. Member's was the one really directed narrowly to an Amendment. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would not mind my admitting on his behalf that the hon. Member had raised a very specialised and difficult point about seamen presenting a special problem, and my hon. and learned Friend was hoping to have been able today to reply when speaking to another Amendment, on which it would have been in order for him to reply to the hon. Member's point, but, unfortunately, it was not possible to give the hon. Member notice and he was not here. I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be writing to the hon. Member to try to answer his point in detail. I hope the House will forgive that diversion.
In conclusion, in supporting this Amendment in another place we were genuinely trying to meet and help and satisfy what we realise to be the deep feelings on the other side and also the practical problems which we recognise exist in certain industries such as shipping, and yet at the same time maintaining what we believe to be right, that for the agency shop provision there ought to be more than the simple majority which is required to obtain recognition. For these reasons I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) may want to make a brief comment afterwards, but, with the leave the House, I just want to say that it seems to me that while the right hon. Gentleman made a fairly long and detailed reply it was a most unconvincing one. I do not want to speak long but I must point out that he did not deal with the points which had been made in relation to the simple majority.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that under Clause 48 the simple majority applies in relation to recognition but he went on to say that, whilst it can apply in that case, it cannot then apply in relation to the agency shop provision. He made the point that a closed shop usually means about 90 per cent. of the workers in a union before the closed shop is applied. I am not going to deny that, but the point is that it is on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the trade union. We are getting away from the voluntary agreement to the point where the legal paraphernalia is becoming involved, and if this is to be the future pattern, then the simple majority should apply on recognition and on the agency shop.
9.15 p.m.
I should like to comment briefly on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the time my hon. Friends are taking on these debates. He cannot make remarks like that without there being a reply. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are angry because hon. Members on this side of the House have not lost interest in the Bill but are deeply concerned with its principles and details and, as long as the Bill is before the House, will participate in the debates at all levels.
The right hon. Gentleman has made this constant complaint because, in the last analysis, he does not want any discussion on the Bill; he wants to push it through automatically without proper democratic discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to understand that the democratic principle is very valuable to us and dear to our hearts. My hon. Friends are not prepared to let that

demoratic process go in relation to the Bill. The trade union movement has never had an opportunity to discuss the basic principles because it was said from the word "go" that the basic pillars were not under discussion. But we shall try to discuss them whenever we get the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Genleman's remarks were quite unwarranted, and I hope we shall hear no more of them.
The question of the miners' 55 per cent. majority has been brought into the argument. I said in my opening remarks that hon. Gentlemen opposite would look for one or two examples to try to prove their case. This is the one they picked on. The miners' union is one of the few unions that does not have a simple majority.
I think that we have made out a very good case, and I hope that we shall have the support of the House. I will say no more. I know the hon. Member for Yarmouth wishes to make a point.

Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for awarding me the opportunity of making a point. I was tremendously impressed by his first intervention and agreed with almost every word he said, but I find it more difficult to do so since his second intervention, which was most immoderate.
My right hon. Friend will know that I have supported him throughout the passage of the Bill and have sat through almost all our discussions, but I am not happy about the simple majority and the suggestion made in the Lords Amendment for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Walton. I was a little confused when the hon. Member for Walton said that we in Parliament govern our affairs by simple majorities, and, indeed, come here by a simple majority, because he went on to say that in the case of the agency shop agreement the situation was quite different and special. I cannot follow that argument. The hon. Gentleman has always been strictly honest with the House and admits that there are no precedents. Had he been able to quote precedents, his case would have greater weight. I must not get out of order by bringing in other matters, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that the extremely important matter of the Common Market will be decided in this House by a simple majority.

Mr. Tom King: No doubt it was not thought necessary to quote precedent because there was enough information before the House on this matter. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the National Union of Mine-workers regarded 55 per cent. as the correct figure. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) assured the House that a two-thirds' majority was a hallowed procedure for many trade unions. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) informed the House that one could get the results one wanted with a minority.

Mr. Fell: I am delighted I gave way to my hon. Friend. I am sure he feels better. I was saying that the use of the two-thirds majority by unions was in regard to change of rules. But in this House we adopt the principle of a simple majority for any matter, however great it may be. We all know that the greatest

matter which has come before this House for 100 years will be decided by a simple majority. If I am wrong and the Government decide to do something different, then that will be a precedent. But I am not happy that we should set a precedent in this case.

I was impressed by the earlier part of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Walton—though I shall not vote for the Amendment—and perhaps my right hon. Friend may rethink this matter before this debate is over. If he does not rethink it now, he will not have another opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Shall we take a simple majority vote on this Amendment?

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 271.

Division No. 445.]
AYES
[9.24 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Heffer, Eric S.


Allen, Scholefield
Deakins, Eric
Hilton, W. S.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashley, Jack
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Ashton, Joe
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Atkinson, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Barnett, Joel
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Beaney, Alan
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Evans, Fred
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Forrester, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Freeson, Reginald
Kaufmann, Gerald


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kelley, Richard


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E.
Kerr, Russell


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kinnock, Neil


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Lambie, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Golding, John
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Latham, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry
Lawson, George


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Leonard, Dick


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lipton, Marcus


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)




Hamling, William
Lomas, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Loughlin, Charles


Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McBride, Neil


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McCann, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hattersley, Roy
McCartney, Hugh




McElhone, Frank
Paget, R. T.
Stallard, A. W.


McGuire, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michal (Fulham)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mackie, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mackintosh, John P.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield.E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Marks, Kenneth
Pre6cott, John
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Marsden, F.
Probert, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Marshall, Or. Edmund
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Meacher, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Varley, Eric G.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Wallace, George


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, David


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Weitzman, David


Molloy, William
Rose, Paul B.
Wellbeloved, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Brian
Small, William



Oram, Bert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Padley, Walter






NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cockeram, Eric
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Coombs, Derek
Goodhew, Victor


Awdry, Daniel
Cooper, A. E.
Gorst, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Corfield. Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gower, Raymond


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Batsford, Brian
Critchley, Julian
Grieve, Percy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crouch, David
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Curran, Charles
Gummer, Selwyn


Benyon, W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davie, A. G. F.


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfleld
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Body, Richard
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boscawen, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Haselhurst, Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eden, Sir John
Hay, John


Braine, Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bray, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Brewis, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hicks, Robert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bryan, Paul
Fidler, Michael
Holt, Miss Mary


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hordern, Peter


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hornby, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Butler, Adam (Bosworrh)
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fox, Marcus
Hunt, John


Channon, Paul
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
James, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gardner, Edward
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)







Jopling, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sproat, lain


Kilfedder, James
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kinsey, J. R.
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stokes, John


Lane, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John
Sutcliffe, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, John (Harrow, w.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Longden, Gilbert
Peel, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Luce, R. N.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McCrindle, R. A.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McLaren, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tilney, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McMaster, Stanley
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Trew, Peter


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Rt, Hn. Francis
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maude, Angus
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Molyneaux, James
Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Money, Ernle
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott, Nicholas
Wodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shelton, William (Clapham)



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Simeons, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Mudd, David
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Keith Speed.


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Amendment to the Lords Amendment proposed: Leave out 'two-thirds' and insert '51 per cent.'.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 269.

Division No. 446.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Davies, S. O, (Merthyr Tydvil)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Allen, scholefield
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Jack
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Delargy, H. J.


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dempsey, James


Barnes, Michael
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Concannon, J. D.
Driberg, Tom


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Dunnett, Jack


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
Edelman, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Ellis, Tom


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davidson, Arthur
English, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)
Evans, Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.




Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hers, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Forrester, John
Leonard, Dick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Freeson, Reginald
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ginsburg, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roper, John


Golding, John
McBride, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McCann, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Gourlay, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Sandelson, Neville


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius


Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Hardy, Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marsden, F.
Stallard, A. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Heffer, Eric s.
Meacher, Michael
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hit. Robert
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt Hn. G. R.


Houghton, Rt Hon. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Howell, Denis, (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dick


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Torney, Tom


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tuck, Raphael


Irvine, Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Janner, Greville
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Eric G.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Wallace, George


John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert
Watkins, David


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Padley, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Gerald
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Kelley, Richard
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Kerr, Russell
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.



Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lamond, James
Prescott, John
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Latham, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westnoughton)
Mr. James A. Dunn.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brewis, John
Coombs, Derek


Balniel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cormack, Patrick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Critchley, Julian


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crowder, F. P.


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Blaker, Peter
Carlisle, Mark
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Boardman, Tom (Leiceter, S.W.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James


Body, Richard
Channon, Paul
Dean, Paul


Boscawen, Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.







Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


Dixon, Piers
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dykes, Hugh
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Eden, Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fenner, Mrs, Peggy
Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, Sir Ronald


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Luce, R. N.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin
Simeons, Charles


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sinclair, Sir George


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Sproat, lain


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stokes, John


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hall. Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Thomas, Rt Hon. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tilney, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Trew, Peter


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hay, John
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hiley, Joseph
Openheim, Mrs. Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hunt, John
Pink, R, Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Iremonger, T. L,
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hn. George


James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Jessel, Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Rt. Hon. Francis
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 10, line 31, at beginning insert "knowingly".

9.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment is taken together with the comparable Amendments: Nos. 30, 31 and 32 in Clause 15; Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 62 in Clause 31; Nos. 109, 111, 113 and 114 in Clause 53; No. 178 in Clause 92 and No. 186 in Clause 94.
The House will have seen that the Amendments in question all seek to insert the word "knowingly". They are all Amendments which were moved in another place by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and accepted by the Government. They are all designed to appear in the various Clauses in question before the words:
induce or attempt to induce".
They are designed to make plain that proceedings on the grounds of an unfair industrial practice which is said to consist of inducing can only lie where the inducement was done with knowledge of the effect that it would produce. It is a point, as I say, which was pressed upon the Government in another place.
The House will recollect that the concept of inducing or attempting to induce occurs in the agency shop provisions, in the infringement of workers rights provisions in Clause 31, in the recognition provisions in Clause 53, in the breaking of contracts of employment provisions in Clause 92 and in the unfair industrial practice in support of another unfair practice in Clause 94. Those are all the places in the Bill where the concept of inducing occurs, excepting in Clause 128 where the concept of inducement is used to exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. It has been felt right by all those who considered it in another place and by the Government not to add the word "knowingly" but to follow the existing words of the legislation. To include it there might restrict the effect of that Clause in excluding the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
The word which is sought to be inserted does not in any way conflict with the ordinary rule of law, but inducement in itself involves knowledge and intention. It merely makes plain, as the Government were pressed to do, that throughout this Bill knowledge is a necessary element of inducement. It sets it beyond doubt, although the House may feel that there was very little doubt about that anyway.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. and learned Friend make one point plain—that to any normal lawyer this is totally unnecessary because "knowingly" is imported into the law at common law? I think this was done by Lord Gardiner, in his wisdom, to ensure that there could be no doubt in the matter.

The Solicitor-General: I did not want to develop the argument. My hon. Friend is right in repealing what I said—that knowledge is implicit in the concept of inducement. The idea is familiar, but the point was pressed on the Government by the noble and learned Lord, and to set the matter beyond doubt it has been thought right to include the word "knowingly" at the points I have indicated.

Mr. Concannon: I mention for the record that of the 1,102 Amendments tabled in another place, 42 Opposition Amendments were accepted. We are now discussing 14 of the 42.

Mr. John Fraser: I will not go through the list of unfair industrial practices which the Amendment is designed to mitigate. It was tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Gardiner and at first the Lord Chancellor said that, having looked through the textbooks, it seemed unnecessary.
It is encouraging to an up and coming lawyer to know that the distinguished Lord Chancellor could be wrong the first time. In the event, he said that Lord Gardiner was right and that he had been wrong. Thus, he finally accepted the Amendment, though mentioning that some dangers might arise. Did he mean that some people might get away who would otherwise be caught?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman is casting himself in the rôle of an up and coming lawyer, I am sure that the House would be glad to pay tribute to his modesty. Certainly I would not wish to stand in the way of his self-description. I hope that he will concede that the Lord Chancellor was not acknowledging error but was wishing to make an understandable and sensible concession to Lord Gardiner, and so set the matter beyond doubt. No error was acknowledged and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as generous to the Lord Chancellor as I am being to him.

Mr. Fraser: I thought that I was being generous.
The inclusion of the word "knowingly" in this context is often related to strikes as being unfair industrial practices. In the House of Lords the Government amended the definition of "strike", and I have a question which is of considerable importance in this context which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman can answer.
Hon. Members will recall that not long ago British Medical Association doctors gave notice of their intention to terminate their employment with the National Health Service. If they were to do that again—if, for example, an organisation introduced auxiliaries who had not qualified as doctors and were working in the N.H.S. and the doctors decided to take such a step—would they, as members of the B.M.A., being part of a closed shop and having knowingly given notice to terminate their contracts, be liable to damages for indulging in an unfair industrial practice under the terms of this Measure?

Mr. Alex Eadie: I do not want to become too involved in what is obviously a legal argument. However, I do not apologise for entering the debate, particularly as my brother is a lawyer and I have discussed the legal aspects of the matter with him.
We are now talking about strikes and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) referred to this word having been defined. A strike occurs when people decide that they do not want to work. Indeed, the first challenge to this Measure will probably arise as a result of the Government's announcement today.
I do not know the circumstances that will surround that challenge, but perhaps the people on the Clyde, those who work for U.C.S., will decide to come out on strike, not because they want to strike but because they want to work.
We have been talking about inducement and unfair industrial practices. People who strike are sometimes accused of being associated with some sort of predatory organisation or are motivated by irresponsibility, though it can be irresponsibility on the part of the Government. Here are people who might decide to strike because they want work.
I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can answer this, because it may well be the first challenge to the Bill. I wonder whether the Government will take up this first challenge to it, because we will be dealing not with two or three people, but with hundreds of thousands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a very narrow point, "knowingly to induce". We are dealing with a word which has been inserted, so we have heard, at the representation of Lord Gardiner in the House of Lords, to clarify a very narrow point.

Mr. Eadie: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have legal experience and will guide me, and I am grateful to you, but I am also getting advice from other legal persons sitting next to me. I know that one lawyer's opinion is as good as another's—

Mr. Speaker: In the matter of order, no other lawyer's opinion is as good as mine.

Mr. Eadie: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but speaking as a non-lawyer and since this is an emotive matter and of great moment, I would say that by his own words the Solicitor-General has raised precisely the point which I have raised. Therefore, because this matter is of some moment to ScotLand—and indeed, to the whole Bill—I seek to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to answer my proposition concerning workers who decide to take industrial action because they want work. I wonder whether he would try to clarify what I regard as this very important position.

The Solicitor-General: I move with caution, Mr. Speaker, in view of the limitations you have placed on the scope of the debate.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman has moved with caution in any event.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady says that I have moved with caution on this in any event. Anyone who talked about the important human issues on Clydeside which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has raised would move not simply with caution but with understanding, sympathy


and compassion. Because I cannot respond to the wider issues, I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am neglecting them. It would not be right for me to embark on discussion of them.
My reply to the point raised by the hon. Member, which is in line with that raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), is that the worker who strikes in the circumstances posed by either hon. Member is not himself committing an unfair industrial practice in any event. The doctor who strikes—in fact, he would not be striking by giving his notice—is not rendering himself liable to any action at law. The only situation in which an unfair practice could be committed is where somebody induces people to strike in pursuit of one of the objectives identified in the Bill.
If an organisation, a trade union or its representatives induced workers to strike because, as the hon. Member put it, they wanted work—in other words, if they were striking about an issue of interest and they were being called out on that strike by a registered union or its representatives—equally there would be nothing unfair about that. The essence of the Bill is that an interest strike, a strike about something as important as availability or non-availability of work, or as important, as it could be, as the dilution of the medical profession by the admission of non-qualified people—a strike of that kind called without notice but by a registered organisation or its officials equally is not unfair. The only circumstances in which either of the examples posed could be unfair would be, first, if the strike was called without notice not by or on behalf of a registered trade union. Then, those calling the strike would be inducing under Clause 92 as it used to be.
The hon. Member for Norwood asked about the position of doctors. It could not constitute an unfair practice if the doctors gave their due notice. They would not in any event be taking collective action in respect of anything categorised as unfair in the Bill. If they were protesting against the employment of unqualified people, that would not be something in which it would be regarded as

unfair to strike. The point would not, therefore, arise.
I dare say that I have gone further already, Mr. Speaker, than the question of the meaning of the word "knowingly". On that narrow basis, I commend the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 10, line 34, leave out from "that" to "voted" in line 35 and insert:
neither a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot nor two-thirds of those who voted in it have".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out 'two-thirds' and insert '51 per cent.'.
10.0 p.m.
I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we also discussed the Opposition Amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 291, 292 and 293. They are in exactly the same terms.
We have discussed thoroughly the principles involved in this batch of Amendments but it is to the Amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 291, 292 and 293 to which I want to address some brief remarks because they relate to a quite different situation from that which we discussed in earlier debates—that is, the question of the ballot which arises from Schedule 8, the closed shop situation. It is different because it was the particular and peculiar characteristics of certain industries that brought into being the approved closed shop provision—the celebrated breach of what the Government held forth as an absolute principle originally.
I am provoked into saying, again, following the right hon. Gentleman's reply to our earlier debate, that he must grasp that recognition precedes recruitment. Trade union recruitment follows upon recognition and not the other way round. People do not join a union as a sort of abstract principle. Some may do so, but not the average person. People join for concrete and specific reasons, principally because of a particular situation or set of events whereby they are able to recognise the value and merit of membership. A


person will not join a union in these circumstances unless it offers some means of obtaining redress for what may be a grievance or of achieving a particular end.
We deployed these arguments when we debated fully and effectively the Government's proposal to prohibit, in defiance of the Royal Commission's recommendation, the closed shop. The Government subsequently, in the light of our powerful arguments, which received support from hon. Members opposite, introduced the approved closed shop. Here again, the approved closed shop can be upset if one-fifth of the workers in the industry challenge its establishment and if there is subsequently a ballot.
I have two questions. First, in an approved industrial situation, where the whole House envisaged the approved closed shop finding its relevance, how is it possible in many circumstances to identify the bona fides and industrial good standing of the individuals who may challenge the ballot? In practice, how would it be possible to determine at any given time the proportion of those in the industry as a whole who might be protesting? For instance, I do not know how at any one time one would determine how many members there were of Equity, the actors' union, and therefore how many would constitute one-fifth. It is important that legislation should be practicable, we have repeatedly cast our doubts about the Bill in that respect. But it is important that it should be practicable in industries such as acting and among unions such as Equity, the Musicians' Union and the Writers' Guild and similar professional and quasi-professional bodies. In such circumstances, how could a ballot be carried out in practice?
For instance, I understand that, because of the fluctuating character of employment among musicians, often of a seasonal character, musicians may move from being whole-time professionals to part-time professionals, sometimes doing what they call gigs, one-night stands, while between engagements they work as, for instance, clerks on a building site to make up their incomes. The difficulty is not confined to professional or quasi-professional groups. There would be a limit to which this procedure could be applied to seafaring. I regret that my

hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not in his place. We had a limited debate on Report when he commented on the impracticality of conducting a ballot among seafarers, who might be scattered all over the world at any given moment. There is also the building industry, with a transient labour force moving from site to site and difficult to quantify or identify. We have discussed the principles and these are the practical difficulties which arise even more sharply in the situations which I have mentioned.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish to extend the debate over ground already covered. The issues on which he lays most emphasis are how to identify the group of people among whom the one-fifth are to be found and how to conduct a ballot in order to ascertain whether two-thirds within the group when once identified do or do not approve.
When one is concerned with a ballot to get a closed shop agreement, or to cancel one—the two possibilities—one has to find one-fifth from those actually covered by the agreement being sought or then in existence. It is acknowledged that it cannot extend to those potentially in the industry although not then employed within it.
That is the position as it was when the first Schedule left the House. That position has not been altered by anything done in another place. Neither is it dealt with by this Amendment. The second point, put in the broader sense of how it will be practical to conduct a ballot among people who may be in scattered places and who will find it difficult to vote, is the reason why the Amendment made in another place is before this House for approval. The point put to us by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and others is that we cannot hope to get a 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote and it is better to acknowledge that we should look at the voting of those who do vote.
This is designed to take into account the point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) about how we can count the votes of people who cannot vote. That is why we have included this alternative threshold whereby


we look not at those who could have voted but at those who have voted and on that basis we have to get two-thirds, 66 per cent., of those who are voting. That may well be less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote.
It is upon that basis that we have accepted and commend to the House the Amendment made in another place. We cannot go beyond this any more than on the agency shop. I recommend the House to accept the idea of a closed shop being acceptable on a balloted majority of less than one of those alternatives in the Bill; in other words, 50 per cent. of those eligible or two-thirds of those voting.
As my right hon. Friend said earlier, trade union leaders of great experience in another place made the point that we do not normally seek or expect to get a closed shop agreement with less than 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the employees in question already in union membership. It is as a parallel to that that we put forward the same concept in the context of the closed shop as in the context of the agency shop.

Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General has not answered the pertinent points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker). What we are saying here is that, however much we may object to the concept of the ballot for the agency shop, we have argued that and are moving on to a separate point of whether we have to import that ballot procedure into the approved closed shop situation. It does not follow automatically that because we have a ballot provision for the agency shop there has to be this right to challenge the approved closed shop with the consequent ballot. It was only as a result of the illustrations given by my hon. Friends in the earlier debates of the position in certain industries that we ever got the Government to accept the concept of the closed shop principle.
It was pointed out that there were industries in which it is difficult to control entry. There could be the swamping of standards through a lack of pre-entry control. The work force might fluctuate and be peripatetic. The approved closed shop agreement will apply only where it is found by the C.I.R. that these special situations exist. It is just those special situations that make a nonsense of the

ballot provisions which we are challenging.
How can we say that two-thirds of the relevant workers shall be allowed to challenge this approved closed shop agreement and then go on to say that the relevant workers are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply? If we return to the Equity agreement, and I am not as competent to deal with that argument as my hon. Friend, the relevant workers would be literally anyone who was trying to come into the industry in an uncontrolled way. How can we, by definition, find two-fifths of them?
We know that we are engaged in a useless exercise. The Government will not listen. They did not listen in Committee, and they will not listen now. But we tell the Solicitor-General that when the massive overhaul of this absurd legislation takes place, as it will have to, we hope that he will not be too proud to admit to the House that he was wrong about this closed shop ballot provision, and that one day we may look forward to seeing it eliminated.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I rise because I have a close interest in these matters. They affect Equity, the Screenwriters' Guild and the Musicians' Union. The right hon. Lady and I would both be out of order in discussing whether or not there should be a ballot; that time is past. We are now considering whether the terms laid down for the ballot in the Lords Amendment are an improvement. In my view the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the special cases of the National Union of Seamen, Equity, the Screenwriters' Guild, the Musicians' Union and perhaps others— I know not, because I have no experience of others—so as to enable them to conclude a closed shop agreement.
It is clear to me that the Solicitor-General was correct in saying that this provision does not apply at large to any musician or any member of Equity just because he happens to be a casual actor or someone who just walks on to the set, or a muscian who plays part-time. It clearly applies only to those who are engaged in the agreement required.
The case of the Screenwriters' Guild is the easiest to deal with. Its whole purpose is to enable all those who write


scripts for television and films to associate together to secure a closed shop, so that they can uphold their standards. Once a person has become a scriptwriter he wants to join others who wish to enter into an agreement, not necessarily with a single employer; the Government have changed the terms of the Bill so as to enable the agreement to be made with an organisation or an association of employers. That is a great change in the terms of the Bill.
Plainly, therefore—if we put ourselves in the position of one of the workers to whom I have referred—if we want to enter into the agreement we must have an eligiblity to vote. Having got it, we may not have the opportunity to use it. If, as in the case of those eligible to vote, an ordinary majority is sufficient, it is right that in the alternative a proportion of two-thirds of those who are able actually to vote should decide, in order that we may be sure that we obtain the real feeling of the workers who are associated together.
The ballot is maintained so that we can ensure that the provisions of the Bill are truly limited to the cases where a substantial group of workers wish to be associated in an agreement either with a single employer or with an organisation of employers, so that criteria can be fixed which will enable them to fulfil the requirements of the special exception relating to a closed shop agreement.
In my judgment, that does not infringe the general principle for which we speak, because we still believe that workers should have the right to decide whether they wish to subscribe to a union.
This is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House, but, having come down in favour of the right of the worker to select, I have always maintained that the stand which I have taken up on this matter was a proper exception and did not infringe the principles of the Bill, and I think it is right that the Lords should have produced an Amendment of this kind which takes account both of the eligibility to vote and also of those voting, but provides an alternative.
One final point. I think it is true to say that the Minister in charge of this Bill and the Solicitor-General and those

advising him really ought to be congratulated from all parts of the House, whether or not one agrees with the background principle, upon their efforts to try to achieve what they have achieved, which is an exception which will be of value to many people and many hon. Members on the other side of the House and their colleagues in this field.
They have done it, as they have done it, without any support from the Musicians' Union. I bitterly regret that. I raised this entirely because the whole of the members of the Musicians' Union in the Isle of Thanet, without support from their union, wanted this matter to be brought forward. The Screen Writers' Guild, again, or certain members of the Guild, wanted this matter dealt with. That is why it came about. The same also goes for Equity. It did not arise from officials of the union entirely. It arose from the rank and file, and it was for that reason, and surprising, perhaps, that these matters were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and others of us on this side of the House, and from beginning to end we have had the utmost sympathy and compassion from the Ministers, who have had to give long heart-searching to try to arrive at an accommodation which introduces the new principle into the Bill, a principle which, I believe, will be of value to everyone.

Mr. Harold Walker: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not claiming a monopoly of virtue in this matter and implying that hon. Members on this side of the House were not equally, or, indeed, much more, concerned on behalf of these workers?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Oh, no, I am not for a moment suggesting that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House did not take a keen interest, but other hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House wanted to wreck the Bill because they objected to its principles altogether, and they took no interest but virtually sabotaged what one was seeking to do. There were honourable exceptions. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) was one notable exception.
However, it is true to say that from the officials of the Musicians Union, or people in this House, no assistance whatever was given, or the slightest endeavour to help in any way at all, to try to create


an exception which will be of tremendous value to the union's members, and that was for political reasons, because they wanted to sabotage the Bill. It is very unfortunate, because in the long term this provision may be of the greatest material assistance to those men who, as hon. Gentlemen will recognise, serve a particular profession which may well require a particular agreement and to form a closed shop agreement of this nature. I am not going to argue whether they can get an agency shop agreement, but if they cannot they may be able to get in under the criteria of this Clause. I do not suggest that the intervention by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) was other than a perfectly proper intervention and I do not suggest that we on this side have a monopoly of virtue —I think that was his phrase—in having raised this matter. Not at all. I do say, however, that the Government are entitled to say that they have a virtual monopoly in coming up with a successful answer.

Mr. Lamond: I dissociate myself entirely from the congratulations extended by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davis) to the authors of the Bill, and do not accept the strictures he expressed. What has interested me tonight has been the retreat of the Solicitor-General and the Minister as they tried to meet the opposition's arguments about the proportion of votes which should be cast in favour before a ballot is considered to be successful. Several hon. Members have said that we are elected here on a simple majority, but that is not entirely correct. Hon. Members can be elected to the House by fewer votes than a simple majority of the total votes cast.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had all this debate before. If hon. Members opposite later tell those of us who have been quiet in order to allow them to speak that they have not had time to discuss the Clauses when they are doubly discussing what we have already discussed and have been doing so in the last two days, it is not clear to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is quite clear to me is that this is not in any way a point of order.

Mr. Lamond: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point but this is an important

matter which we wish to hammer out and I will speak as briefly as I can. An hon. Member can be elected to the House with a majority of a little over one-third of the votes cast in the election. In the famous election of 1945 Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower was elected as Conservative Member for Caithness and Sutherland in a three-cornered contest on barely one-third of the total votes cast. He had 5,564 votes out of an electorate of almost 26,000, that is less than 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote. If we accept these standards and apply them to ourselves we cannot expect the trade unions to believe that we are strengthening their hand if we apply different standards to them.
The Minister said that on a ballot for recognition a simple majority was sufficient, but that is not sufficient to satisfy me, because there are important parts in the Bill where we are insisting that two-thirds of the votes cast must be in favour. It has been suggested that this is being done because important matters are being decided.
An hon. Gentleman opposite took up this point and asked what the position was in regard to the Common Market. He said that if an assurance were given that a simple majority would not be enough in that case he would be happy to accept what is proposed here. This very point was put to the Prime Minister at Question Time recently, and the Prime Minister replied:
If I understand the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question correctly … He is saying that we should work on the basis not of a simple majority of votes cast in this House but of a majority of all those who are Members of the House.
In other words, a majority of the 630, even if only 500 voted. A much more modest request was being put forward than what is proposed by the Government tonight, but the Prime Minister categorically said that that was not acceptable to the Government:
This is not the constitutional practice of the House, and I do not see any grounds for changing it on this occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1673.]
Although such an important matter as that is to be decided on a simple majority, the Government are asking on a matter like the closed shop for a two-thirds majority. I suggest that this reveals that they are concerned not to strengthen the


trade union movement but to make it as difficult as possible for that movement to achieve its ends in protecting the workers.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 233. Noes 265.

Division No. 447.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, John


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, William (Fife. W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnes, Michael
Hamling, William
Mitchll, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oram, Bert


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Irvine, Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, w.)
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds. S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cunningham, G. (Islington S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caewryn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Delargy, H. J.
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael

Stewart, R. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt Hn. John


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foot, Michael
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. G.
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.



Marsden, F.
Wainwright, Edwin




Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitehead, Phillip
Woof, Robert


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Rt. Rn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McCrindle, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin


Astor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey
Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley


Awdrey, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Rt.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bennet, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslon, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Gorst, John
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernle


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Glimmer, Selwyn
More, Jasper


Bray, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brewis, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hay, John
Osborn, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, w.)


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clegg, Walter
Holt, Miss Mary
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Coombs, Derek
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cordle, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crouch, David
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfleld
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W, (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Fall, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
Luce, R. N.
Sheet, T. H. H.



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)







Soref, Harold
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Spence, John
Tilney, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sproat, lain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wilkinson, John


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stokes, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Keith Speed and


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT

Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 13, line 17, leave out "section" and insert "Act".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment which I hope will commend itself to the House. As it stands, the definition of "approved closed shop agreement" applies only to Clause 16. It is, of course, intended to apply throughout the Bill in the same way as the definition of the "agency shop agreement" in Clause 10(1) applies throughout the Bill. The Amendment puts that matter right. I hope that it will be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 20, leave out "employers' association" and insert "organisation of employers".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 288, 294, 295 and 297, which are in the same terms.

The Amendment will enable an approved closed shop agreement to be made between one or more trade unions and an organisation of employers which is not registered. We accepted the argument advanced in another place that it is chiefly a handicap that a union should require an employers' organisation to be registered before it may be a party to an approved closed shop agreement. The Amendment removes that particular requirement.

Amendments on similar lines were moved originally in Committee in another place by Baroness White and Lord Archibald, who are members of the Labour Opposition. The Amendments were looked at sympathetically by the Government side and were eventually adopted on Report. That is why we

commend them to the House. We believe that, in the narrow sphere of the approved closed shop agreement, we can make the concession without undermining the basic philosophy of the Bill on registration.

These Amendments will enable an organisation of employers which is not registered under the Bill to be a party to an approved closed shop agreement, and this will overcome the objection that was made in another place that the requirement of an employers' organisation to register before it could become a party to a closed shop agreement was essential. I think that it is very much in the interests of those who support the approved closed shop concept, which we have debated on previous occasions, that these Amendments should be made, and I hope that they will be accepted by the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 35 in page 13, line 26, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 28, and insert
if he is not already a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be, must become such a member unless specially exempted".

Read a Second time.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, at end add
'(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)'
I think it might be convenient if we take at the same time Amendment No. 290 to Schedule 1, in page 123, line 42, at end insert—
() In this paragraph, 'effective application' means any application which is not precluded by paragraph 10 of this Schedule from being entertained by the Industrial Court.

The two Amendments seek two different objectives, but they are a part of a whole and, therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that they should be taken together.

This is the "approved closed shop agreement" Clause. It was introduced by the Government partly in answer to arguments put forward on behalf of Equity, but the ironic thing is that the


Clause as it stands is of no value to Equity—for reasons which I shall give in a moment—though it may be of help to some other unions. I think that this proves the argument that I have made throughout, that there are no particular arguments to be made on the Bill on behalf of paricular trade unions. Any argument about the Bill is a general argument and is applicable to the entire trade union membership.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I want to help him. I think it might be for the convenience of the House, and I do not doubt that the Solicitor-General has this in mind, to take at the same time his Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290, at end add
'but notwithstanding paragraph 7(2) and paragraph 10 of this Schedule where an approved closed shop agreement is in force any one or more employers who are not parties to such agreement may with the trade union or trade unions concerned apply to the Industrial Court for any order that such employer or employers be made a party or parties to such agreement and the Industrial Court, if it is satisfied that the existing parties to the agreement consent to the applicant or applicants becoming parties to the agreement shall order that such applicant or applicants shall forthwith be parties to such agreement.'
Perhaps the hon. Member would address himself to that Amendment, too, if he feels so inclined.

Mr. Jenkins: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while you were in consultation I had tried to make it clear that it was my intention to follow the advice which you have subsequently given.
I was about to say that there are no particular arguments to be made on this Bill. Any argument made on behalf of one trade union is an argument on behalf of all trade unions, and it is a little ironic that the consequence of the argument put forward is an Amendment which is of no value to the union on whose behalf it was argued.
The reason for that is that the type of control exercised by Equity is control of entry, which the Bill defines as pre-entry, and against which the Government have set their face. We say that this is not pre-entry but point of entry. We seek to limit the number of people entering into the entertainment business, and it is this which the Government say

they cannot permit because, if they did, it would undermine the broad principles of the Bill.
To prove the need for the Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, I must first show that the Bill will not work. To show that, it is necessary to refer to the casting agreements now operated by Equity. These are different in various parts of the entertainment business. In the West End theatre, for example, productions have to be cast from full members of Equity—people who have been in the business for 40 weeks and have been provisional members of the trade union for 40 weeks. There is an appeal procedure. If a manager wants to cast a newcomer, he can go through an appeals procedure. If he manages to persuade his fellow managers, they might impose their decision upon the trade union, and the trade union accepts into membership the newcomer. Therefore, it is a hurdle, but it is not a door. The manager can ultimately do his own casting but he has to go over this hurdle in order to do it. Similarly in the touring companies and among principals in pantomimes, they have to be cast from among existing members of the union. Therefore, technically under this Bill, even in its altered state, it is impossible for Equity to function as it now does.
The alterations made in the Bill, therefore, are of little value to the union on whose behalf to some extent, at any rate, they were introduced. I think this illustrates the sad part about this Bill, that it will not succeed in doing what it seeks to do but will achieve other ends. From the point of view of the entertainment world, this is a thoroughly bad Bill.
I will not go through the whole entertainment industry, but in most branches of entertainment, including the cinema and television, there are provisions under which, in the first instance, casting is made from among existing members of the trade union. It is only when that source has been fully explored that the manager is entitled to go outside and bring in a newcomer.
In subsidised repertory there is a limit of 130 new entrants every year. Once the managers have cast their 130 in a year, nobody else comes in. The shutter comes down. This will no longer be permitted under this Bill. This procedure may seem harsh, but it is done by


agreement by the managers. It recognises the necessity to limit entry, and they have argued in favour of the maintenance of the shop.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite in their doctrinaire fashion—I have never come across such a doctrinaire Government as this lot—are completely obsessed with the doctrine of Conservative so-called freedom, which has shown itself, for instance, in the proposed destruction of the National Film Finance Corporation, which it would be out of order for me to deal with now. This doctrinaire bunch is bent upon destroying the entertainment industry with which I have been associated for many years.
My proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to add at the end:
'(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)'.
It provides that in the event of a worker being specially exempted, the consequence of such special exemption shall not be that he escapes from the discipline of the union. It means, therefore, that even if he pays his contributions to a charity or other organisation he still has to comply with the rules of the union. This is important, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it because it will provide an opportunity for a man who objects to paying to a trade union to pay his contributions elsewhere, but will ensure that he does not escape from the general obligations of trade unionists.
However, the Amendment does not make it possible for Equity to control the delinquent manager. Those powers are hopelessly lost under this iniquitous Bill, and if I had time I would quote chapter and verse relating to the case I mentioned the other day, in which a distinguished theatre manager said that he had been totally misled by hon. Gentlemen opposite into believing that it was the intention of the Government to do something to rescue the theatrical world from the plight into which this Measure is casting it, but no such rescue has occurred and it will not occur unless the Amendment is accepted.
Some of my hon. Friends say that the Bill will not work and so it will do little harm. That may be so in the industries

they represent, but in acting it has already begun to do harm. For example, for the first time for many years, employment has begun to take place on a non-union basis. In Bognor, for the first time in years, a group of actors was engaged on a non-Equity basis at below minimum rates. When asked why this was happening for the first time since Equity was established, the manager said, "I no longer have to bother with Equity because of the Industrial Relations Bill." That statement, by Miss Brenda Ross, is on the record. In this case, she was made to bother.
Elsewhere, in summer shows in various parts of the country, managers are considering whether they can now undercut the Equity rates, whether they still need to use Equity contracts or as a result of this Bill will be free to do exactly as they please.
Unfortunately, what is believed often proves to be the case. If it is believed throughout the entertainment business that Equity's shop is universal and operates generally, that will be the case. If, on the other hand, the opposite is believed to apply, it may begin to apply. The Bill is already undermining the situation and undermining a form of control that has been valuable to managers and to the entertainment business as a whole. I have with me a letter from a very distinguished British actor which says:
Artistic standards rest on the economic foundations that Equity has created and which the Industrial Relations Bill seeks to undermine.
As the Bill is drafted, the procedure for obtaining a closed shop agreement is so cumbrous that even when both the trade union and the employer are willing, it cannot be achieved without tremendous delay. There is the initial delay of one month, the process of the Industrial Court, the ballot procedure and all the rest.
For this reason the second Amendment says, in effect, that if a trade union and employer agree to adhere to an existing closed shop agreement, that shall be done without having to go through this procedure. In other words, the lengthy procedure provided by the Bill will be waived if they so agree.
I urge hon. Members, and particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, not to talk about amending legislation. If we do


not take this opportunity to block up the gaps, it will be too late. Although it is now too late to conduct much of a rescue operation in the context of the Bill, it would be possible to rush through the House a new entertainment employers' registration Measure. That might do something to stop the rot.
In the other House Lord Olivier pleaded with the Government in a gentlemanly fashion. I am not an actor but a trade union official. Unlike some actors, I suffer from no illusions about hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those illusions were also held on this side. It was believed by some hon. Members on this side that the Government intended to offer Equity a special deal, but no such special deal has been offered.
Unless these two Amendments are accepted, even this minor rescue operation is prevented. The two Ministers in charge of the Bill are two polite monsters and they are doing grave damage to the entertainment industry. The nation will regret this and I believe that the right hon. Gentlemen will also live to regret it.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: If one of the monsters may be allowed to reply, perhaps I could say a few words about these Amendments.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) pursues the cause of Equity and of the profession in which Equity is involved with great passion and sincerity and we respect him for it, even if we may not always agree with him.
The hon. Gentleman realises, and the House must realise, in considering these Amendments that they apply to the whole field and not just to Equity. Even if I admitted—which I do not—that they were necessary, for the special cases of Equity, it would not be the way of dealing with that, because what is proposed would apply over the whole field of employment.
I will explain why these Amendments are unacceptable. Amendment No. 35 would make a conscientious objector subject to union rules and discipline, even though he is specially exempted from the general requirement to join a union under an approved closed shop agreement. That would be like going back to Army service, with a man being exempted by a

conscientious objection tribunal and then being told to join up just the same.
The whole purpose of conscientious objection, whether we agree with it or not, is that a man or woman should not be subject to the discipline and rules of a union. That is what conscientious objection means. Hitherto, it has often carried with it the advantage that the man or woman concerned was better off, per week or per month, than everyone else, and we are putting an end to that at least by providing that he shall contribute the equivalent of union dues to charities, so that the person concerned does not benefit financially by his objection. But if that objection is tested and accepted by a tribunal, it is unacceptable that, that having been sustained, he should be subject to the rules and discipline of the union. I do not believe that anyone who sustains the principle of conscientious objection at all can look at the Amendment for two minutes without realising that it must be rejected.
The purpose of the second Amendment, to Lords Amendment 290, is to enable employers or associations which are not parties to a closed shop to operate such an agreement as though they were parties to it, provided that that is acceptable to both parties. This, too is unacceptable because it would allow the widespread and unsupervised introduction of closed shops. There may be a difference of philosophy between the two sides of the House.
While we wish to encourage union membership and see it rising voluntarily, we are philosophically opposed to the principle of a compulsory closed shop.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House involuntarily. The Amendment advocates a facility to adhere to an existing closed shop and not a facility to create new ones.

Mr. Carr: That is what I was coming to. We are opposed in principle to a compulsory closed shop. We have said, however, and we moved Amendments accordingly when the Bill was at an earlier stage in this House before it went to another place, that we recognised that there might be a few cases where, without a closed shop, the temporary nature of employment, the great surplus of potential or actual employees or workers in


the trade or profession and many other circumstances might justify an approved closed shop because it would genuinely be the case that without an approved closed shop reasonable terms and conditions could not be maintained in that employment.
Therefore, while maintaining our general principle of opposition to the closed shop, we moved Amendments to make additions to the Bill to allow an approved closed shop in special circumstances. The essence was, however, that the circumstances were special and that each case should have to be approved.
The hon. Member's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290 would vitiate the whole of that principle, because if we accepted his Amendment we would first get a particular position examined and approved as an exceptional case justifying a closed shop. The hon. Member then says that if we accepted his Amendment, anybody who wanted to join, as long as the two parties to it did not object, could join absolutely without limit. In this way, one could get a growth, not only in Equity but anywhere throughout industry, of people joining an approved closed shop ad lib, with no control, no supervision and no passing of special principles.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Carr: This may be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. What is wrong with it from our point of view, and absolutely contrary to the principle of the Bill, is that while we are prepared to encourage union membership, to outlaw the free rider and have an agency shop, we are opposed in principle to the compulsory closed shop but, because we recognise that there may be very special circumstances in which that is the only way that reasonable circumstances and conditions of employment can be maintained, we are prepared in those special circumstances to allow an approved closed shop. It is, however, on the basis of special circumstances.
The hon. Member wants us to accept the proposition that, having got one small area of closed shop approved because the circumstances are special, anybody who wants to do so, provided that it is not objectionable to the parties concerned,

can adhere to that and so make the closed shop bigger and bigger. Even if that were necessary for Equity—and I will say a word presently about the general points— it simply could not be accepted as a general proposition.
Having made the provision for the approved closed shop—the two industries we have particularly in mind which might need it, although there could be others, are Equity and shipping—we believe that we have done all that is necessary. We do not accept that membership of Equity is the only test of entry that can reasonably apply to this profession. We think that other tests of entry can be applied.
We believe that as long as a major number of the most important figures, both on the managerial and the production side of the entertainment industry, on the one hand, and among the actors and performing side, on the other hand, remain loyal to Equity, any coming actor or actress, any coming manager or promoter, who wishes to make substantial progress in the profession will not be able to do so unless he adheres to the reasonable conditions, because he will know that unless he does he will never get the support of the big people in the trade, the big names in the profession, whose support will be essential to his progress.
We believe that in allowing the approved closed shop without free entry— or, as has been said, the pre-entry closed shop—we have provided what is necessary. But if in the event our confidence is disproved and the hon. Gentleman's fears are proved, we shall consider taking special action to deal with the matter. It will not be action in industrial relations law but regulatory action of another kind. I have given that undertaking to the profession. I must advise my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to remove an ambiguity in Clause 16 of the Bill which was identified by my hon. and learned Friend for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I undertook to consider the point and have done so. He suggested that the drafting of the Clause,


as it stood, could be construed to suggest that the closed shop could be approved even if it were a pre-entry closed shop. That was not the Government's intention.
We came to the conclusion that there might be some substance in this point. We have proposed this alteration to make it plain that an approved closed shop cannot be a pre-entry closed shop where the worker concerned has already got to be a member of a union. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend has been taken in another place, and I invite the House to agree with this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 36 in page 14, line 10, leave out from "not" to "a".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 37, in page 14, line 13, after "made" insert:
and has refused to become or has been excluded from being such a member".
No. 38, in line 17, leave out "and has refused to become".
No. 39, in line 19, at end insert:
and refuses to become or has been excluded from being such a member".

The Solicitor-General: These also are Amendments to Clause 16 moved in response to points raised on Report in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). They were drawing attention to certain ambiguities in the provisions of Clause 16 (5).
We considered the matter and Amendments to meet those ambiguities were accepted in another place. They should be considered alongside Amendment No. 41, which inserts new Clause B after

Clause 16—(Supplementary provisions as to approved closed shop agreements).

11.15 p.m.

The effect of the Amendments is to make plain what is or is not unfair for employers in an approved closed shop situation. It is clear from subsection (5) that in certain circumstances an employer may either dismiss or refuse to engage a worker who is not complying with the terms of the approved closed shop agreement. These Amendments make clear the circumstances in which the employer can do those things. He may dismiss a non-member who has refused to join, or a man who has been excluded from the union, or a specially exempted worker—a charity contributor who has refused or failed to pay his charity contribution. The meaning of a man who has been excluded from the union can be dealt with on Amendment No. 41. As a parallel, the employer may refuse to engage a non-member who refuses to join the union and may refuse to engage a man who has been excluded from the union. The provisions are in line with each other and consistent with the principles of the Bill. I invite the House to agree with these Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 14, line 19, at end insert—
() Where a worker to whom the agreement applies, and who is specially exempted, has agreed to pay appropriate contributions to a charity, and requests his employer to deduct the contributions from his remuneration and pay them on his behalf, then so long as that request remains in force—

(a) he shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) of this section as having refused to pay the contributions to the charity, and
(b) any failure on the part of the employer to comply with the request shall not be regarded as a failure on the part of the worker to pay the contributions."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 221.

Division No. 448.]
AYES
[11.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Humphrey
Balniel, Lord


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Awdry, Daniel
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Blaker, Peter
Havers, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Raison, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Homsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jessel, Toby
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cockeram, Eric
Kilfedder, James
Sharples, Richard


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Coombs, Derek
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Simeons, Charles


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Soref, Harold


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveridge, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dean, Paul
Luce, R. N.
stokes, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McCrindle, R. A.
Sutcliffe, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Temple, John M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Madel, David
Tilney, John


Emery, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Trew, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, Lt-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &Stone)
Money, Ernle
Ward, Dame Irene


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wilkinson, John


Gorst, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Nott, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



Grylls, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gummer, Selwyn
Osborn, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Gurden, Harold
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hall, John (Wycombe)









NOES


Albu, Austen
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Ronald King


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Hailloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hattersley, Roy
Oram, Bert


Barnes, Michael
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnett, Joel
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Beaney, Alan
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hil)
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Janner, Greville
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Richard, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D,
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Durnnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Marsden, F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Whitehead, Phillip


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ginsberg, David
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

New Clause "B"

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO APPROVED CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 14, line 24, at the end insert new Clause "B":
'B.—(1) For the purposes of section 16(5)(a) of this Act a worker, notwithstanding that he has not expressly refused to become a member of a trade union with which an approved closed shop agreement was made, shall be treated as having so refused if he does not duly apply for membership of that trade union before the end of the relevant period or if, having applied for such membership, he withdraws that application.
(2) For the purposes of section 16(5) of this Act a worker shall be treated as having been excluded from being a member of a trade union if (but only if)—

(a) his application for membership of the trade union has been rejected, or he has been expelled from membership of the trade union, and
(b) the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.

(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) of this section are that—

(a) under the rules of the trade union the worker has a right of appeal against his rejection or expulsion, and
(b) his appeal has been heard and dismissed or has been withdrawn or the time for appealing has expired without his having exercised that right.

(4) Subject to the next following subsection, in this section "the relevant period" in the case of an approved closed shop agreement—

(a) in relation to a person who, on the date on which the agreement takes effect, is a worker to whom the agreement applies, means the period of three months from that date, and
(b) in relation to any other person, means the period of one month from the date on which he begins to be employed as a worker to whom the agreement applies.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that, in so far as any approved closed shop agreement relates to workers engaged, or seeking to be engaged, in work of a description specified in the order, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect as if, for the references to three months and one month, there were substituted references to such shorter periods as are specified in the order.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment was foreshadowed by me in what I said to the House a moment or two ago. It is connected with the

Amendments that the House has just considered—Nos. 36 to 39—and is the last of a group moved in response to points made on Report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Just to complete the story of what happens in the approved closed shop, as I have explained, the employer is entitled either not to engage or to dismiss certain workers who do not comply with the conditions laid down in the approved closed shop situation. In particular, the employer is entitled to dismiss or not to engage the man who has been excluded from a union.

The Amendment dealing with the new Clause B, to be added after Clause 16, sets out in substance the meaning of being excluded from a union. It has the effect that if a person applies for membership of a union and is excluded from it either on seeking to join or by subsequent expulsion, he is not to be treated as excluded by the employer unless and until the appeal procedure of the union has been gone through.

I want to explain the structure of the Clause in a little more detail. The first subsection provides that a worker who fails to apply, or does not pursue his application, or withdraws his application, for membership of a union which has a closed shop agreement made in its favour, within the period that he has to do so, is to be regarded as somebody who has refused to join, and the employer is entitled either not to take him on or to dismiss him. The union, having got an approved closed shop agreement, is entitled to see that the employer either does not take him on or dismisses him.

I mentioned the period of grace that the man has. Under subsection (5), in the ordinary way a worker who is already employed in the approved closed shop has a period of three months in which to join the union, and a new worker coming in has a period of one month in which to join. That period can be shortened if the industry is such that a shorter period is required. Rather, as with the agency shop agreement, in other words, the Secretary of State may shorten the period of three months in the case of an existing worker and of one month in the case


of someone seeking to be engaged! So this is the first case—the man who does not even try to join or who, because he does not follow up his application to join, becomes liable to dismissal by the employer or need not be taken on by the employer.

11.30 p.m.

Moving to the next stage, if he applies for membership and is pursuing his application for membership, he cannot be regarded as excluded and cannot be regarded as somebody whom the employer is entitled to dismiss or not to engage until either the application for membership has been rejected or, if he is an existing worker, he has been expelled from the union and he has exercised his right to appeal and the appeal has been dismissed or he has not attempted to appeal. He remains entitled to protection and remains entitled not to be dismissed until his appeal against expulsion or his appeal against non-admission has been disposed of by the union.

Mr. Orme: Is his appeal to the union or to the Industrial Court? If his application to the union is refused, as he has never been a member of the union he has no right to appeal to the union.

The Solicitor-General: It depends. There are a variety of situations, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody. [Interruption.] My assertion did not justify the anxious grunt that it provoked from the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman grunts as eloquently as anybody in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will do so if I am given the opportunity. In certain unions a person who applies for membership has a right to appeal from a rejection. It is not true of all unions, but in the case of some unions if an application for membership is refused the man is entitled to appeal against his initial rejection.
Similarly, in certain unions—indeed, in most unions, if not all—a member who is expelled is entitled to appeal against expulsion. The limit of his right to remain on is until he has exercised and exhausted his right of appeal under the union's procedure. It does not entitle him to stay on after that if he wishes to challenge the way in which the union

has dealt with him. In other words, it would have been possible to include a provision which said, "The worker who is employed in a closed shop situation and who is expelled from the union is entitled, not merely to remain on in the job until his internal union appeal has been exhausted, but also to stay on until he has challenged the union appeal procedure by going on thereafter to the industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court." That is not what the Clause says. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. In other words, the worker stays on until the internal procedure has been exhausted but not beyond that. If he wishes thereafter to challenge the union's procedure as being unfair in having dismissed his appeal, he would have to challenge it from outside by going to the Industrial Court.

Mr. Orme: I follow that argument, particularly as applied to someone who has been a member of a union and has been expelled. In my union if an applicant for membership is refused admission he has no right to appeal. Other union members can raise the point that they have proposed and seconded his admission, but he has been rejected, but the applicant himself is not a union member because he has been rejected.

The Solicitor-General: That would not come within these provisions. The hon. Gentleman's union is not the only one. Other unions have provisions for appeal aganst non-admission. I think I am right in saying that one or other of the cinema industry unions, either A.C.T.T. or N.A.T.K.E.—I think A.C.T.T.—has appeal procedure of that kind. In that situation the non-member who is trying to become a member has that kind of appeal. It is this compromise provision which we have adopted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames argued that we should entitle the worker to remain on not merely until internal procedures had been exhausted but until the appeals from the external procedure—the court or registrar—had also been gone through, but this provision does not go as far as that.

Mr. John Golding: Does the word "dismissal" here include suspension from duty?

The Solicitor-General: The word "dismissal" does not include suspension from duty, but the other thing which the employer may not do until he can show the worker comes within this provision is to discriminate against him; so the employer would be disentitled to discriminate against the worker on these grounds as well.
The hon. Gentleman may have in mind the possibility of the employer suspending from duty on full pay while the matter is gone through. I do not think that would amount to a discrimination. So the position could be put in cold storage until the appeal procedure had been gone through. This is what would happen under many existing procedures now. Where the closed shop exists, the union expels and asks the employer thereupon to follow up the expulsion by dismissal. Both sides frequently accept that until the union's appeal procedure has been exhausted the man should remain suspended on full pay. That would not amount to dismissal, nor to discrimination as between him and somebody else.
Granted the concept of a closed shop, and granted that it is operating within this area where it is approved, I suggest to the House that the Amendment is a coherent and reasonable response to the points put in another place and argued in this House on Report, and that it is a sensible provision to link to the Amendments which the House has just considered.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in explaining what is basically a new Clause, puts forward a case which on the surface appears to be a genuine concession to some parts of the trade union movement. It seems to meet the points made by hon. Members. It may meet the case of some of his hon. Friends, but the trade union movement is not satisfied that this is a serious concession.
The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the clue when he pointed out that under subsection (4), if agreement is reached while the worker is employed he is given three months to join, and after an agreement has come into operation he is given one month to join.

The Solicitor-General: The two positions are these. If the man is already employed at a plant and an agreement

comes into operation for the first time, three months. If it is there when he arrives, one month.

Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but that is exactly what I said. That is my interpretation. What the hon. and learned Gentleman can say—and no doubt this will be his great justification—is that, under the new subsection (5), the Secretary of State can decide, in certain special circumstances, that the period should be shorter than three months or one month. To some extent, we had this discussion earlier today, when we asked what was the thinking of the Government about the period that might be suggested when the Secretary of State took such a decision and brought in the appropriate order. We were told that it was not possible at this stage to say what the situation would be.
Let us examine this great concession, and the industries to which the provision could well apply; indeed, it was brought in precisely because of the conditions in such sectors as acting, television and sea going. Unless there is a pre-entry closed shop in them, even with this provision it will be almost impossible to catch up with certain people. The situation will be quite fantastic. In the case of seamen in particular, a three-months period would be ridiculous; even one month would be no use. With some short sea journeys, a seaman could flit from one company to another. Earlier, I gave the example of a musician, perhaps a trombone player who does a couple of night stands somewhere and then moves on. In such a case, one cannot even begin to talk in terms of one week even, because this type of worker moves so quickly from one job to another.
This really is no concession at all. Some hon. Members opposite got slightly excited when the basic principle to which they had firmly nailed their colours was, they thought, being eroded under immense pressure from certain sections of the trade union movement and from the Opposition. The have no need to worry. Their fears need not lead to sleepness nights. The Government have clearly stated once again that their basic principle remains: they are against the closed shop, including the pre-entry closed shop. Although they


say they are in favour of what they call an approved closed shop, it is so hedged about that it means virtually nothing.
I come now to the question of the worker who may be expelled or, having made application, excluded from the union. The Solicitor-General is right in saying—we have said it often enough— that each union has its own rules. The unions are not the same; they do not have a pattern which applies to every industry.
11.45 p.m.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) indicated what happens in his union. Perhaps I might tell the right hon. Gentleman what happens in my own, because it underlines how democratic we are. In the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, if an applicant for membership is refused admission by a branch, the chairman is bound by the rules to inform the applicant how he can appeal to the national executive committee against the decision of the branch. Often, such an appeal is upheld by the national executive, and the branch concerned is forced to accept the applicant.
The trade union movement has its own appeals machinery, as we pointed out when we discussed the idea of having to go to an industrial court. The British trade union movement is an extremely democratic body. There are variations of the democratic theme, but anyone can take advantage of the appeals machinery if he feels that he has been wronged by his branch.
The Secretary of State made the Government's position clear earlier when he said that, in principle, they are opposed to the compulsory closed shop, though they recognise that in some circumstances there might be some justification for the approved closed shop. However, the view of this side of the House, and, incidentally, that of our friends in the other place, is that this is a phoney closed shop and really is no closed shop at all.
This proposal was opposed in the other place. When we come finally to decide this Amendment, my hon. Friends will make clear their opposition to it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, this is a phoney Amendment. However, I do not believe that it is deliberately so. I think that it is accidental and symptomatic of the way in which the Government have presented the Bill and moved their Amendments.
I am reminded of the story of the Dutch boy who pushed his finger into a hole in a dyke when he saw water coming through it, only to find other holes appearing. The Solicitor-General is playing a similar rôle, trying to stem the flood through the many breaches in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very near the position of the boy who stood on the burning deck. One cannot help feeling that if there was time he would like to begin all over again and move further Amendments to stop up the many other holes that my hon. Friends have discovered.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who has great experience as a trade union official, has pointed out an obvious flaw in drawing attention to the relationship between suspension and not obvious dismissal. Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought of that at all. If the Lords were to sit until next Christmas, I doubt whether he could come back with an Amendment to cover that position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme), who has great engineering union experience, has pointed out that there is a great variation. His own union has certain practices, as have the building workers union and the railway workers, from whom I came before my trade union education, after which I got certain experience of union practices in the British trade union movement.
We are told that this addendum, if it can be called that, or this addition, "After Clause 16", is to improve the earlier words. But it does not. It confuses; it confounds confusion.
It reminds me of the contribution last night of one of my hon. Friends who is a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. He said that it was an absolute impossibility for ordinary workers, their representatives,


and even middle and top trade union officials to sit down and interpret this kind of twaddle as it affects industrial relations. It will simply upset the workers if they try to do so.
I said earlier that it was not the thoughts of Chairman Mao, but the thoughts of Geoffrey Howe. After this addition to Clause 16, we shall have to have a few more pages attached to that little book. I do not know whether it is a little red book. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a blue book."] Every worker will sit by his machine, and, instead of working his machine, he will have to think how to interpret "After Clause 16" in relation to the closed shop. It is not worth the candle.
This addition is geared to previous contributions by the Secretary of State on previous Lords Amendments relating to Clause 16. It is an attempted logical follow on. The question of paying to a charity is laughable. It is an oddity in industry; it is not the rule. The whole box of tricks will completely upset the workers.
On the pre-entry closed shop, possibly the only advanced pre-entry closed shop system is the one affecting the print workers. I do not know what will happen there. Probably we shall not have any national newspapers in consequence. They have a labour supply situation confronting them. Their voice has been missing on the follow on to Clause 16 and all that goes with it. I do not think they have a sponsored Member here. At any rate, I have not heard the voice of that union with its great experience of the closed shop.
Right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite have been completely contradictory. They turned their faces against any concept of a closed shop, but they have had to bend a little by the force of the discussion, and now they come back with this virtually idiotic "After Clause 16" which heavily protects because of the time element, the month and three months provision in Clause 5.
I hope that it is the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this "After Clause 16" from the other place. It simply confuses a grossly confused situation. It adds to the general totatility of the complete irrelevance of this part of the Bill, and the rest of it,

to Britain's necessity to keep industry going, to stay in the export market, and so on, and to bring about the co-operation which we so desperately need. I believe that, in the end, this kind of stuff will destroy all that.

Mr. Loughlin: I thought that the Solicitor-General explained the Amendment and its implications very well. I understood the Amendment as a result of his explanation. He spoke in particular about the periods of grace for the two categories of people involved —three months' grace for the person who is in employment, and one months' grace for the newcomer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about industries in which the three months' grace, even for those who were in the industry at the time of the coming into operation of this provision, would not be appropriate. On hearing my hon. Friend my mind went immediately to the fishing industry as a classic example of what might happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the shipping industry. I think that the fishing industry provides a good illustration of the futility of the three months' grace if some people want to avoid their obligations. There are three sections in the industry. There are the inshore men, who go out with the tide and come back with the returning tide, or possibly go out one day and return the next. Then there are the middle-water men, who are often away for a week. The third section, which is the one most affected by this provision, is the deep-sea element.
In the deep-sea fishing industry, each man is engaged for one trip. He may be employed by a line operating a closed shop. If he goes to Iceland, or the Barents Sea, he may be away for 21 days, and one can think of the opportunities which the dodger will have to defeat this provision. It will not be possible to apply this part of the Bill to the deep-sea fishing industry without the Secretary of State using his powers under subsection (5).
That subsection says:
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … shorter periods. …


When one examines all the industries in the country, one realises that there is a distinct possibility that if the Secretary of State were called upon to exercise his powers under that subsection he would constantly have to introduce Statutory Instruments relating to single industries.
But conditions in industry could change, with the result that the Secretary of State could repeatedly have to come to the House to introduce Statutory Instruments, not merely in relation to particular industries—

It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to the Orders [25th January and 28th July].

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ROADS (CARMARTHEN BY-PASSES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Weatherill.]

12 midnight.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The question of the two by-passes of Carmarthen has been a problem which has confronted our area, especially Carmarthenshire and West Wales, for many years. It is a problem which has occupied the minds of many people, the county council in particular. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the roads and bridges committee of the county council for their efforts over the years in stating the case for the two bypasses.
The problem at present is obviously a result of the fact that the A45 trunk road together with the A40 trunk road link form a combined east-west route, westwards to St. Clears and into Pembrokeshire at the point in Carmarthen. Not only do we have these two main trunk roads, but we also have the further aggravation that roads from Llanelly, Lampeter and Cardigan have a focal point in Carmarthen. Therefore, Carmarthen is the gateway to West Wales. There is a severe bottleneck in the town of Carmarthen causing the tourist a great deal of inconvenience, and when we talk of inconvenience we are talking in terms of hours every Saturday. It is not some-

thing which happens once in a while. It happens Saturday after Saturday. Carmarthen is also an administrative centre and a market town. This further helps to aggravate the situation.
Tourism in West Wales is developing despite this hazard. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) will agree with me. Tourism is now becoming a major industry. In Carmarthen it brings in over £2 million a year to the economy. In Pembroke it is probably in the region of £8 million to £10 million a year. Over the years the position has been worsening. It was beginning to make itself felt in the middle of the 1960s. I should like to quote what Mr. Tew, the engineer, and Mr. Randles, the planning officer, stated in their report. It will exemplifiy what has been happening in Carmarthen and how the great increase in the flow of traffic has contributed to the situation which exists today.
Their report states:
On a Saturday in the first week of August, 1952, 10,700 passenger car units entered Carmarthen by the three main routes. On 22nd Auaust, 1964, the number had increased threefold to 32,700. The by-passable traffic"—
the traffic which was not stopping in Carmarthen but which had to go through the other areas, especially Pembroke, mainly tourist—
increased from 5,400 to 23,700 over the same period. … The impact of this traffic can only be appreciated if it is realised that in general each of these existing routes has a practicable capacity well below 6,000 passenger car units per day, and in addition to this through traffic, had to carry over 9,000 local vehicles.
The trend started in the 1950s and began to make itself felt in the middle 1960s. The experience of the last few years was not with us in the early 1960s or the 1950s. But in the middle 1960s the increase in traffic flow was at a far greater rate than in the earlier period. I estimate that there is a general increase now of 10 per cent. per year, and the vehicle licensing figures show an increase of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. per year in local traffic. In other words, both local and through traffic are increasing at a considerable rate.
During the period of the Labour Government—I do not wish to be controversial and I am not making a political point—we had introduced, in 1965, the


concept of the preparation pool, and although we must do more to tackle the problem, it will be generally agreed that that concept was of benefit. In October 1968, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) announced, as Secretary of State for Wales, that the southern by-pass had been put into the pool. Since then announcements have been made about the eastern by-pass and the dual carriageway and by-pass from Carmarthen to St. Clears. These are urgent and necessary projects.
I understand that when projects are placed in the preparation pool, it is then up to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office to set the priorities. As I have explained, in 1968 the southern by-pass was placed in the pool, as was the Pontardulais project. While I look forward to the day when the motorway runs from London to Cardiff, through Carmarthenshire and into Pembrokeshire, the Minister has a problem to face now. If the motorway is completed to Pontardulais by 1976, as planned, and the situation in Carmarthen continues as at present, the position will become intolerable because the traffic that is now coming across South Wales on the A.48 is being held up en route at Pontardulais and Morriston. If these two towns are by-passed, the traffic will arrive that much faster in Carmarthen and become even more compacted.
What priority is the Welsh Office prepared to give to solving this problem? The situation is becoming impossible. For example, last Saturday was the worst for many years. I am told that the traffic congestion throughout the weekend was so bad that queues of vehicles extended eastwards from Carmarthen to St. Clears and beyond. I am informed that the queues were some of the longest in the history of the area and that the problem is reaching emergency proportions.
What priority is the Welsh Office prepared to give, not to the southern but to the eastern by-pass and the dual carriageway between Carmarthen and St. Clears, including the by-pass of St. Clears? If we construct only the southern by-pass, the problem will not be eased. On the other hand, if we merely by-pass Carmarthen the problem will not be eased either. Indeed, it will be made worse because the congestion will simply be removed from Carmarthen to St. Clears,

which is only nine miles away. Welcome though the motorway is, will the Minister give an assurance that by 1976, when it is opened, the two by-passes of Carmarthen will be built and ready for use?
The future prosperity of Carmarthen and of West Wales depends on this infrastructure improvement. Tourism depends on it. Industrial development depends on it.
I am glad to see two hon. Members opposite have come to listen, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who was actively concerned in the preparation pool schemes, and especially with the southern by-pass of Carmarthen. [Interruption.] I am reminded of the Bailey bridge. This helped the situation for a while, but the experience then was similar to what will happen when the Carmarthen traffic is moved to St. Clears. That moved the problem from one part of the river further downstream. I accept what the former Secretary of State said— that he foresaw the problem.
This problem is so urgent that it merits serious consideration and priority action by the Welsh Office.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) for giving me the opportunity to intervene, and for once I found myself in almost entire agreement with him. For Carmarthen this road is important; for Pembrokeshire it is vital because it is literally our lifeline. The whole of our industrial development, our tourist industry, and all our communication with the rest of the British Isles depend on this road and at the moment it is obstructed by this bottleneck, and not only that, but it affects many vital local facilities.
At present, this is the way to our hospital. If Government plans are carried through, it may be the way to the centre of local government. This is vital for Pembrokeshire. There are few higher priorities in the road building programme anywhere in the Principality. The Government have set aside £14 million extra for infrastructure improvement in the near future in Wales, and I hope that some of it can be allocated to this high priority.

12.13 a.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen on raising this matter of such interest and for the excellent way in which he did it, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), who made a short intervention, since this also affects his constituency. May I say to them and to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas), that Wales is pretty well represented tonight.
The problem of serious traffic congestion in and on the approaches to Carmarthen, particularly during summer weekends, has been with us for far too long. An improvement is essential, not only for Carmarthen itself, where traffic is badly congested, but also for South Wales as a whole. For Carmarthen stands at the crossroads to South West Wales; it is the gateway to Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and South Cardiganshire, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is an area of great natural beauty, visited by many holidaymakers.
It is particularly unfortunate from the traffic point of view that Carmarthen stands at the junction of the two main east-west trunk routes, the A.40 and the A.48. It is bounded on the south by the River Towy, which is crossed by only one bridge. It is this bridge, combined with the road junction immediately to the north and the urban area to the west, which lies at the heart of the problem.
With the greater level of resources available lately for roads, it has become possible to tackle congestion in places such as Carmarthen on a more comprehensive basis than was thought possible some years ago. In the early 1950s, it was decided to build an internal relief road, known as the Carmarthen diversion, west of the bridge. Perhaps I may pass to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West, to pass to his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, a map of the area which will make clearer what I am about to say.
That project involved improved roads in the town and the dualling of the length of the A.40 road on its western outskirts. The improvement was in three stages. The first was completed in

1959 and the second in 1965. A third stage, now under construction, is expected to be completed early in 1972. The cost of these three schemes is well over £1 million.
Those improvements did not, however, deal with what has become the major cause of congestion, which is the single bridge over the River Towy. Accordingly, in October 1968, a scheme to provide a southern by pass, the second river crossing, at an estimated cost of £2 million, was added to the trunk road preparation pool. Since then, first the previous Administration and now the present Government have been pressing ahead with the preparation of this scheme. Inclusion in the preparation pool, therefore, means that it is a worth-while scheme which will be brought into the firm programme.
When the statutory processes have advanced to a stage where we know exactly what the scheme will cost and, secondly, we know how the expenditure is likely to be spread over the construction period, we shall then be able to consider this scheme alongside others which have reached a similar stage of preparation and decide the final priority in the light of the funds available.
I would expect this Carmarthen bypass scheme to be among the first to qualify for a place in the firm programme, but in fairness to the other schemes in the preparation pool it would not be right for me at this stage to make a firm commitment. The preparation of a scheme of this size, partly within an urban area and involving land partly in industrial use and a new bridge, is a complicated exercise. The choice of route to put forward for public comment raises difficult technical planning and environmental problems.
All these processes take about five years to complete, which would mean starting at the end of 1973. We expect to meet this date, although, of course, one can never predict what objections will be received when the formal statutory procedures begin. It was realised in 1969 that unless further steps were taken, the situation at the bridge at peak week-ends would, as the hon. Member has said, become extremely critical before the southern by-pass could be in use.
Accordingly, in 1969 a further interim scheme was prepared to provide some


immediate relief by means of a temporary Bailey bridge a short distance away from the present bridge, combined with the operation of a one-way traffic system. It was always accepted that the degree of relief afforded by the Bailey bridge would be limited until the final stage of Carmarthen diversion scheme had been completed. We regard the Bailey bridge as a useful interim measure but it will certainly not stop us pressing ahead as quickly as we can with the completion of the southern by-pass.
Further plans to relieve congestion were announced in May 1970, when an eastern by-pass was added to the trunk road preparation pool. The purpose of that scheme is to improve the approach along the A.40. It will provide a new road from Abergwili to link with the southern by-pass at the south-eastern corner of the town, at an estimated cost of £1·6 million.
There was a certain price to be paid as a result of the decision to bring forward the construction of the eastern bypass because the design of the southern by-pass had immediately to take account of the need for another junction where the two by-passes join. This involved a certain amount of redesign, although this has been completed and the basis on which proposals can be published has now been settled.
There have, however, been other difficulties to which I must refer. The hon. Member will recall that, in reply to two Parliamentary Questions on 3rd March and 3rd May last, he was told that it was hoped to publish proposals for the southern by-pass this summer and for the eastern by-pass later in the year. I now have to tell the hon. Member that some of the design details have taken longer to settle than had been expected and our latest estimate is that we should be able to publish draft Orders under Sections 7 and 20 of the Highways Act, that is to say Orders fixing the centre line of the by-pass and seeking powers to build the new bridge over the River Towy, in the spring of next year.
The date for publishing Orders for the eastern by-pass is rather more tentative at present but is likely to be later in 1972.
The hon. Member has asked that the M.4 east of Carmarthen should not be

completed until the by-passes of Carmarthen has been built.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: With respect, I did not suggest that. Of course, I want to see the motorway coming into Carmarthenshire—God forbid that anyone should try to stop that proposal. I was asking about the situation of the motorway just beyond Pontardulais. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the delay of six or more months will mean that the completion of the scheme will also be delayed?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: What I was about to say was that, much as I regret it, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
We want to complete the whole road as soon as we can. It would not be right to delay work on any section. Part of the M4, the Morriston by-pass, is already under construction and will certainly be ready before the Carmarthen by-pass. But I expect the Carmarthen by-pass to be in use before the whole of the Welsh length of the M4 is completed.
The present programme for the bypasses, despite our desire to complete preparation quickly, is disappointing. The main problem with the southern by-pass has been the effect of the new road on railway Land and on adjacent Land occupied by industrial and commercial concerns and by British Railways. It is intended that the road should be elevated here and several combinations of bridge, embankment and alignment have had to be considered, each affecting the constructional cost of the scheme, and the effect on neighbouring property.
We had provisionally come to the conclusion earlier this year that we had reached a solution which could be incorporated in a draft Order for public comment. This has, however, had to be verified by further studies, particularly on issues affecting Land use and the effect on industrial premises. We have now completed these studies and can proceed with the draft Orders. The position on the eastern by-pass is that its alignment is affected by a possible change in 1973 in railway operations which could enable certain railway Land to be used for the road.
Planning difficulties are not unusual in a scheme in or close to an urban area. Whatever route is chosen is likely to have an adverse effect on some people and, in fairness to everyone who might be affected, we must examine every possibility carefully. While my right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to modify a line in the light of objections after it has been published this requires further lengthy procedures and we like to try as far as possible to get the best line in the first place. Time spent on details now may well prove worth-while in the end.
It is well known that the by-passing of Carmarthen is part of the Government's main highway strategy in South Wales. This is designed to provide a dual carriageway road, most of it motorway, from the Severn Bridge to the point in St. Clears where traffic divides along the A.40 to the north side of Milford Haven and the A.477 to the south side of the Haven. The whole of this length is now covered by schemes under construction, schemes in the firm programme, schemes in the preparation pool, or feasibility studies. All will be pursued with the utmost vigour, consistent with not riding roughshod over the wishes of people affected.
In the Welsh Office we are as keen as the hon. Member to see this strategy become a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. George Thomas: I deeply appreciate the difficulties of the Welsh Office in this matter and I am well aware of the grievous problem facing Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. In support of the powerful representations which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), I should like to ask two questions. Would the Minister give a firm date for when he expects and aims for the southern by-pass to be included in the firm programme and could he say when he expects and aims to get the eastern by-pass in the firm programme?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting those questions to me. As soon as a firm date can be given for both, I shall get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. It would be wrong for me tonight to give what might seem to be a firm date but what would not be so firm tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock-